Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Jesus LUCIO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-15
Citations: 206 F. App'x 348
Docket Number: No. 06-40110
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Jesus LUCIO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 206
Pages: 348–349

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Jesus LUCIO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40110
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 15, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Yzaguirre & Chapa, McAllen, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Jesus Lucio challenges his 135-month sentence for possession of more than five kilograms of cocaine with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. First he asserts that the district court clearly erred in finding that he was a leader or organizer of the drug trafficking offense. According to the Presentence Investigation Report, Lucio recruited his co-defendant to participate in the drug trafficking scheme; Lucio was closer to the supplier than his co-defendant; Lucio arranged for the transportation of the drugs, while the co-defendant merely supplied interim storage space and assisted Lucio in the delivery of the narcotics; and Lucio had more to gain financially than his co-defendant. The probation officer obtained this information from the investigative reports submitted by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office. In addition, Special Agent Hover confirmed during the sentencing hearing that the supplier did not have contact with the co-defendant and that Lucio was in charge of both transporting the narcotics and storing them at the co-defendant's house.
The only rebuttal evidence offered by Lucio was his testimony that both he and his co-defendant received telephone calls from the supplier. Because Lucio's status as a leader or organizer of the offense is plausible in light of the record as a whole, we find no clear error. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), cmt. 4; United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 446 (5th Cir.2001).
Next Lucio asserts that there was an insufficient nexus between the drug trafficking activity and the presence of an unloaded handgun in his co-defendant's kitchen at the time of his arrest to justify a firearm enhancement. However, he fails to brief this issue adequately for the court's consideration. Although he asserts that there was no indication that the firearm was used or possessed during the drug trafficking activity, he fails to cite any authority for his argument that the enhancement was improper. An argument that is not supported with citation to authority is deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
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.