Court Opinion

ID: 9838798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 00:00:27.520816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:47.301881
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40402        Document: 00516887006             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/07/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                                                                        FILED
                                      No. 22-40402                              September 7, 2023
                                     ____________
                                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                              Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Alfredo De La Cruz Vela,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 1:21-CR-308-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Engelhardt, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Alfredo De La Cruz Vela appeals the sentence imposed following his
   guilty plea conviction for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 50
   grams or more of methamphetamine. De La Cruz Vela argues that the district
   court erred by (1) imposing a two-level enhancement because he maintained
   a residence—located at 3643 Rey Enrique Drive in Brownsville, Texas—for
   purposes of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, see

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40402      Document: 00516887006         Page: 2     Date Filed: 09/07/2023

   U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), and (2) imposing a four-level enhancement because
   he was an organizer or leader of the criminal activity, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).
   De La Cruz Vela further asserts that his 240-month below guidelines
   sentence is substantively unreasonable.
          This court reviews the district court’s “interpretation and application
   of the Guidelines de novo, and its factual findings for clear error.” United
   States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). “A factual
   finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record as a
   whole.” Id. “We will find clear error only if a review of the record results in
   a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id.
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          The district court properly adopted and relied on De La Cruz Vela’s
   PSR to impose enhancements under the Guidelines. See Zuniga, 720 F.3d at
   591; United States v. Rico, 864 F.3d 381, 386 (5th Cir. 2017). ‘Generally, a
   PSR bears sufficient indicia of reliability to be considered as evidence [at
   sentencing].’ Zuniga, 720 F.3d at 591 (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). De La Cruz Vela’s PSR bears those indicia. It does not contain
   ‘[b]ald, conclusionary statements,’ and De La Cruz Vela failed to
   demonstrate that the facts in the PSR are ‘materially untrue, inaccurate or
   unreliable.’ See id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted). Accordingly, the district court could consider the facts in
   the PSR for sentence enhancements. See id. (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted).
          The district court did not clearly err by imposing an enhancement
   pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(12). See Zuniga, 720 F.3d at 590. As noted in the PSR,
   a confidential source reported that De La Cruz Vela controlled regular
   narcotics storage at 3643 Rey Enrique Drive and directed others to distribute
   narcotics that were stored at the house. Such behavior supports the §

                                          2
Case: 22-40402      Document: 00516887006           Page: 3     Date Filed: 09/07/2023

   2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement. See § 2D1.1, comment. (n.17). Accordingly, we
   are not left with “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
   committed.” Zuniga, 720 F.3d at 590.
          Nor did the district court clearly err by imposing an enhancement
   pursuant to § 3B1.1(a). See id. The PSR provides ‘detailed and consistent
   information’ about De La Cruz Vela’s substantial role as an organizer or
   leader. See id. at 592. [referring to Zuniga] De La Cruz Vela planned and
   organized the distribution of narcotics in the United States, found buyers for
   the narcotics in the United States, directed others to recruit accomplices, and
   led two other participants in the conspiracy. See § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2),
   (n.4). The PSR contains additional facts indicating that De La Cruz Vela
   retrieved vehicles containing narcotics once they arrived in the United
   States, collected money from load transporters after a successful job, paid
   drivers to transport vehicles to Mexico to deliver drug proceeds, made
   decisions regarding logistics for smuggling events, employed multiple
   people, and was referred to as “the boss.” Id. In light of these facts, it is more
   than plausible that De La Cruz Vela was a leader or organizer of narcotics
   smuggling. See Zuniga, 720 F.3d at 590.
          We review De La Cruz Vela’s claim that his sentence is substantively
   unreasonable for abuse of discretion. United States v. Scott, 654 F.3d 552, 555
   (5th Cir. 2011); see also Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762,
   766–77 (2020). A properly calculated sentence within or below the calculated
   guidelines range is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. United States
   v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 557 & n.51 (5th Cir. 2015). “Th[is] presumption is
   rebutted only upon a showing that the sentence does not account for a factor
   that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an
   irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in
   balancing sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th
   Cir. 2009). De La Cruz Vela fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness

                                           3
Case: 22-40402      Document: 00516887006         Page: 4   Date Filed: 09/07/2023

   given to his below-guidelines sentence because he does not show that the
   district court failed to consider that he cooperated with the Government to
   the detriment of his safety and welfare. See id.
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                          4