Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Alberto BELTRAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-25
Citations: 91 F. App'x 349
Docket Number: No. 03-41411
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Alberto BELTRAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 349–349

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Alberto BELTRAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-41411.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
DECIDED: March 25, 2004.
Maureen Clancy Smith, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Brett Smith, Smith & Smith, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mario Alberto Beltran appeals the sentence that he received after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute or dispense or possess with intent to distribute or dispense "Ecstasy," more than 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, more than 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, and "GHB."
Beltran argues that the Government did not meet its burden of proving that the isomers in the methamphetamine that was tested was d-methamphetamine or 1-meth-amphetamine. Any distinction in the isomers is immaterial to Beltran's sentence. See Sentencing Guidelines, Amendment 518; United States v. Domino, 62 F.3d 716, 719-720 (5th Cir.1995). Further, Beltran fails to show that the district court erred when it attributed 292.12 grams of Methamphetamine (actual) to him. See United States v. Medina, 161 F.3d 867, 876 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Lowder, 148 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir.1998). Beltran's argument that the district court's ruling on his motion for a downward departure was ambiguous is without merit inasmuch as Beltran does not argue that the departure was in violation of the law or unreasonable. See United States v. Hashimoto, 193 F.3d 840, 843 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Lee, 989 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir.1993).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.