Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elhim HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-17
Citations: 259 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: No. 05-41817
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elhim HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 259
Pages: 655–655

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elhim HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41817
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 17, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Armando A. Trevino, Ramos-Trevino Attorneys at Law, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Elhim Hernandez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana, and he was sentenced to 78 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release.
Hernandez argues on appeal that the district court clearly erred in increasing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c) based on his role as an organizer, leader, supervisor, or manager. Because testimony at sentencing supports a determination that Hernandez asserted control or influence over at least one other participant in the crime, the district court did not clearly err in applying the § 3Bl.l(c) adjustment. See § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2); United States v. Rose, 449 F.3d 627, 633 (5th Cir.2006).
Hernandez also argues on appeal that the district court clearly erred in increasing his offense level by two levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. However, the district court did not clearly err in applying the § 3C1.1 adjustment because its determination that Hernandez's statements to his co-defendants constituted threats against speaking with authorities was plausible in light of the record as a whole. See United States v. Mann, 493 F.3d 484, 498 (5th Cir.2007); Rose, 449 F.3d at 633; United States v. Brown, 54 F.3d 234, 242 (5th Cir.1995).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.