IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11196

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTURO PACHECO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-157

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arturo Pacheco was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm 

and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(g)(1), 942(a)(2) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(c). Pacheco appeals his 

97-month, within-guidelines sentence. He argues that the district court erred 

in applying a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B), 

based on the 11 firearms seized from his residence in two separate searches, 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11196 Document: 00513118860 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
No. 14-11196

2

one in December 2011, and one in February 2012, and in applying a two-level 

enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A), because stolen firearms 

were among the firearms seized during the December 2011 search. Pacheco

asserts that those enhancements were based on unrelated incidents and that 

the stolen firearms were not part of the conduct that led to his convictions.

Pacheco’s argument that the district court erred in applying the 

sentencing enhancements raises a claim of procedural error. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In determining whether the district court 

committed procedural error, we generally review the application and 

interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and review factual findings for clear 

error. United States v. Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir. 2010). 

However, where the appellant failed to object in the district court to the 

procedural error, this court reviews the procedural reasonableness of the 

sentence for plain error. See United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 

324, 327-28 (5th Cir. 2012).

In this case, Pacheco filed no objections to the presentence report and 

further affirmed at sentencing that he decided, after careful consideration, not 

to file any objections because the case law was not favorable to him. Instead, 

he argued that the district court should consider the circumstances 

surrounding the relevant conduct determination and use its discretion to 

determine an appropriate sentence.

We do not resolve whether Pacheco’s statements were sufficient to 

preserve the issue he raises on appeal because, even if the error was preserved, 

Pacheco has shown no error at all regarding the application of the 

enhancements. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 

2008). Pacheco’s admitted possession of the firearms was relevant to his felonin-possession conduct, notwithstanding the origin of the weapons or the fact 

 Case: 14-11196 Document: 00513118860 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
No. 14-11196

3

that the weapons were seized on different occasions. See, e.g., United States v. 

Brummett, 355 F.3d 343, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2003). Only two months elapsed 

between the two searches. During both searches, weapons and ammunition 

were found in Pacheco’s home, and Pacheco was, at the time of both searches, 

a convicted felon. We find no reversible error with the application of the 

enhancements.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-11196 Document: 00513118860 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2015