Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gustavo CHACON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-03
Citations: 256 F. App'x 677
Docket Number: No. 06-51658
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gustavo CHACON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 677–677

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gustavo CHACON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-51658
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 3, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gerald Conway Moton, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gustavo Chacon, who pleaded guilty to one count of bulk cash smuggling, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5332, appeals his sentence. Chacon argues that the district court's application of U.S.S.G. § 2S1.3(b)(1)(B) (2006), in addition to determining the base offense level based on the value of the funds, constituted impermissible double counting.
Section § 2S1.3 applies to several monetary-reporting related offenses, including bulk cash smuggling. See § 2S1.3; U.S.S.G.App. A (Statutory Index). It does not prohibit, but requires, application of both the offense level increase based on the value of the funds and the specific-offense-characteristic increase because the offense involved bulk cash smuggling. There was no impermissible double counting. See United States v. Simmons, 470 F.3d 1115, 1128-29 (5th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 3002, 168 L.Ed.2d 731 (2007).
Chacon's grouping argument lacks merit. Because Chacon was convicted on only one count, there was nothing to group, and U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2 is inapplicable. See U.S.S.G. § 3Dl.l(a).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.