Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose DeJesus ALONSO, also known as Marco Antonio Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-13
Citations: 217 F. App'x 363
Docket Number: No. 06-41079
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose DeJesus ALONSO, also known as Marco Antonio Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 363–364

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose DeJesus ALONSO, also known as Marco Antonio Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-41079
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 13, 2007.
Ernest Gonzalez, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Jackson Herrington, Plano, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose DeJesus Alonso pleaded guilty to count one of his indictment, which charged him and four others with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute and dispense five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 846. He appeals the sentence imposed for this offense, arguing that a three-level enhancement to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b) was improper.
The district court imposed this enhancement based on its finding that Alonso was a manager or supervisor in a criminal activity that involved at least five participants. This finding is reviewed for clear error. See United, States v. Rose, 449 F.3d 627, 633 (5th Cir.2006). Based on the record as a whole, such a finding was plausible and therefore not clearly erroneous. See id.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.