Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Peter M. ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-22
Citations: 383 F. App'x 426
Docket Number: No. 09-11137
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Peter M. ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 426–427

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Peter M. ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-11137
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 2010.
Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, William Ernest Hermesmeyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Peter M. Espinosa presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed as this court has repeatedly held that a sentencing judge may find by a preponderance of the evidence all the facts necessary to the determination of a sentencing guidelines range. See, e.g., United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878, 891 (5th Cir.2009); United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 245-46 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 798 (5th Cir.2006). The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.