Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis MARTINEZ-ROBLEDO, also known as El Maistro, also known as Luis Robledo-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-09
Citations: 372 F. App'x 563
Docket Number: No. 08-40489
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis MARTINEZ-ROBLEDO, also known as El Maistro, also known as Luis Robledo-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis MARTINEZ-ROBLEDO, also known as El Maistro, also known as Luis Robledo-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-40489
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 9, 2010.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Patrick Grissom, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Luis Martinez-Robledo (Martinez) of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, conspiring to launder monetary instruments, and aiding and abetting. See 21 U.S.C. § 841, 846; 18 U.S.C. § 1956. He appeals his sentence of 188 months of imprisonment.
Martinez maintains that the district court erred in imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstructing justice by perjuring himself at trial. The district court considered various statements made by Martinez during his trial and concluded that the statements were false, that they pertained to material matters, and that they were willful and not prompted by confusion or misunderstanding. Because the court's findings established a factual predicate for finding perjury, the district court did not err in imposing the enhancement. See United States v. Creech, 408 F.3d 264, 270-71 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Wild, 92 F.3d 304, 308 (5th Cir.1996).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cut. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.