Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilmer BARAHONA-REYES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-17
Citations: 180 F. App'x 537
Docket Number: No. 05-50988
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilmer BARAHONA-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 537–538

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilmer BARAHONA-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50988
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 17, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Wilmer Barahona-Reyes (Barahona) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of aiding and abetting conspiracy to smuggle, transport, and harbor aliens, and aiding and abetting harboring illegal aliens for financial gain. Barahona argues that the district court clearly erred by imposing a two-level upward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1(c) when calculating the advisory guidelines range. He contends that the evidence before the district court shows that his role in the offense was equal to that of his co-defendants and does not establish that he supervised or managed their actions.
We agree that the evidence before the district court does not establish Barahona's management or supervision of other participants in the offense as required to apply the enhancement in § 3Bl.l(c). See United States v. Jobe, 101 F.3d 1046, 1068 (5th Cir.1996). Accordingly, we VACATE Barahona's sentence and REMAND to the district court for resentencing. See United States v. Duhon, 440 F.3d 711, 716 (5th Cir.2006).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.