Court Opinion

ID: 9919601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 19:00:57.223604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:22.714917
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40222       Document: 00517036464             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/18/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                January 18, 2024
                                     No. 23-40222
                                   Summary Calendar                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                   ____________                                        Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Victor Vallejo,

                                             Defendant—Appellant.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 7:21-CR-1022-2
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
           Victor Vallejo pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
   distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a
   detectable amount of cocaine. On appeal, Vallejo first argues that the district
   court erred in holding him accountable for 0.90 kilograms of

           _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-40222      Document: 00517036464           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/18/2024

                                     No. 23-40222

   methamphetamine as relevant conduct in determining his base offense level.
   Vallejo also argues that the district court erred in applying the two-level
   enhancement under section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
   (“U.S.S.G.”) due to his coconspirator’s possession of a duty weapon during
   the commission of the offense.
          Because Vallejo preserved these arguments in the district court, we
   “review the application of the Guidelines de novo and the district court’s
   factual findings—along with the reasonable inferences drawn from those
   facts—for clear error.” United States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th
   Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks, emphasis, and citation omitted). The
   district court’s assessment of relevant conduct for purposes of calculating a
   sentence and application of the section 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement are factual
   findings this court reviews for clear error. See United States v. Barfield,
   941 F.3d 757, 761 (5th Cir. 2019) (relevant conduct determination); United
   States v. King, 773 F.3d 48, 52 (5th Cir. 2014) (application of section
   2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement).
          First, the district court did not clearly err in determining that Vallejo
   was responsible for the 0.90 kilograms of methamphetamine.                  See
   U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2); Barfield, 941 F.3d at 761. The guidelines provision
   for determining Vallejo’s relevant conduct was section 1B1.3(a)(2). See
   U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1, 3D1.2(d). Contrary to Vallejo’s contentions, the district
   court did not need to make any findings as to whether the methamphetamine
   trafficking   constituted   jointly   undertaken    criminal   activity   under
   section 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), as Vallejo was directly involved in the conduct. See
   U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(A), 1B1.3, comment. (n.2); United States v. Carreon,
   11 F.3d 1225, 1237 (5th Cir. 1994).
          Vallejo’s challenge to the district court’s relevant conduct
   determination under section 1B1.3(a)(2) is unavailing. Regarding whether

                                          2
Case: 23-40222      Document: 00517036464          Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/18/2024

                                    No. 23-40222

   the two offenses constituted a common scheme or plan, both offenses
   involved common accomplices and similar modus operandi. See U.S.S.G.
   § 1B1.3, comment. (n.5(B)(i)); United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878, 885 (5th
   Cir. 2009). As for whether the methamphetamine trafficking was part of the
   same course of conduct as the cocaine trafficking offense, the district court’s
   relevant conduct determination was supported by the similarity of the
   offenses and the temporal proximity of the offenses. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3,
   comment. (n.5(B)(ii)); see Rhine, 583 F.3d at 886-90. Thus, the district
   court’s relevant determination was plausible in light of the record as a whole.
   See United States v. Bazemore, 839 F.3d 379, 387 (5th Cir. 2016).
          Next, it was plausible in light of the record as a whole for the district
   court to find that Vallejo could have reasonably foreseen the coconspirator’s
   possession of the firearm. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d
   751, 765-66 (5th Cir. 2008); Bazemore, 839 F.3d at 387. The coconspirator
   actively performed his duties as a police officer during the offense and used
   that status to provide “cover” for the drug transportation, and Vallejo knew
   that the coconspirator was an on-duty officer. See United States v. Partida,
   385 F.3d 546, 563 (5th Cir. 2004); United States v. Marmolejo, 106 F.3d 1213,
   1216 (5th Cir. 1997). Additionally, because firearms are “tools of the trade”
   for drug traffickers, United States v. Aguilera-Zapata, 901 F.2d 1209, 1215
   (5th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), the district
   court could infer foreseeability of the coconspirator’s possession of his duty
   firearm during the offense, see id. The district court therefore did not clearly
   err in applying the section 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement. See King, 773 F.3d at
   52.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3