Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Alberto LUGO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-15
Citations: 536 F. App'x 393
Docket Number: No. 12-41291
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Alberto LUGO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 536
Pages: 393–393

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Alberto LUGO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-41291
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 15, 2013.
Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Larry Chris lies, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Luis Alberto Lugo appeals the within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Lugo does not argue that his 100 month sentence is substantively unreasonable, but argues only that the district court committed procedural error and incorrectly calculated the applicable guidelines range by imposing a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Whether a defendant was a leader or organizer under § 3B1.1 is a factual determination that we review for clear error. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 204 (5th Cir.2005). Given the record evidence that Lugo paid his cousin to act as a scout for Lugo's criminal activities, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred. See id.; United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 725 (5th Cir.2003) ("When the evidence demonstrates that a defendant directed another in his drug trafficking activities . sentence enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) is appropriate.")
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.