Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maria Helena MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-19
Citations: 473 F. App'x 388
Docket Number: No. 11-41401
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maria Helena MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 388–389

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maria Helena MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-41401
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 19, 2012.
Paula Camille Offenhauser, Assistant U.S. Attorney Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Adam Patrick Rodrigue, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Maria Helena Martinez appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to transport an illegal alien by means of a motor vehicle for private financial gain. She argues that the district court erred by enhancing her sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6) based on a finding that she intentionally or recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to the alien by transporting him in the trunk of her vehicle.
This court reviews a district court's interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and reviews the district court's fact findings relative to the § 2L1.1(b)(6) enhancement for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez, 630 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir.2011). The transportation of aliens in the trunk of a vehicle is specifically listed in the comments to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(6) as the type of conduct contemplated by the Sentencing Commission in drafting the guideline provision. § 2L1.1, comment, (n.5). The district court did not err by enhancing Martinez's sentence.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.