Court Opinion

ID: 9955101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 18:00:47.208966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:16.064658
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10636            Document: 64-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024

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

                                                                                    FILED
                                    No. 23-10636                               March 27, 2024
                                  Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________                                      Clerk

United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Richard Lee Ortiz,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:23-CR-1-1
                   ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Richard Lee Ortiz contests his sentence following his guilty-plea
conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled
substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 (prohibiting conspiracy),
841(a)(1) (prohibiting distribution of controlled substance), 841(b)(1)(B)
(outlining penalty). He asserts the district court erred in applying a two-level

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10636        Document: 64-1        Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                  No. 23-10636

enhancement under Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(1) (“If a dangerous
weapon (including a firearm) was possessed, increase by 2 levels.”).
       Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, the district
court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating
the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51
(2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to
an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-Martinez,
564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in
district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual
findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517
F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). “The district court’s determination that
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) applies is a factual finding reviewed for clear error.” United
States v. King, 773 F.3d 48, 52 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
       Where, as here, a codefendant possessed the weapon, the
enhancement applies if “the defendant could have reasonably foreseen that
possession”. United States v. Hooten, 942 F.2d 878, 882 (5th Cir. 1991).
Foreseeability may be inferred “from the coparticipant’s knowing possession
of the weapon”. Id. Additionally, a codefendant’s use of a firearm is
generally considered “foreseeable because firearms are tools of the trade in
drug conspiracies”. United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 350 (5th Cir.
1993) (citation omitted).
       The record shows:         Ortiz’ codefendants agreed to transport
methamphetamine from Ortiz’ residence on his behalf; police observed Ortiz
and codefendants leave Ortiz’ residence in separate vehicles; as police
followed the codefendants, the police observed codefendants throwing
objects, later revealed as including methamphetamine, out of their vehicle;
and a shotgun was found on the back seat of codefendants’ vehicle. In the

                                        2
Case: 23-10636        Document: 64-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                  No. 23-10636

light of this record, the court plausibly inferred the codefendants’ possession
of the firearm was reasonably foreseeable to Ortiz. E.g., King, 773 F.3d at 52–
55; Mergerson, 4 F.3d at 350. Ortiz fails to show the requisite clear error. See
United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013) (“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.” (citation omitted)).
       AFFIRMED.

                                       3