United States v. Jamie Gonzalez-Lopez , 523 F. App'x 265 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4541
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMIE GONZALEZ-LOPEZ, a/k/a “Amigo”,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:11-cr-00124-FL-3)
Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 7, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Renée Paradis, San Francisco, California, for Appellant. Thomas
G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamie Gonzalez-Lopez appeals his 135-month sentence
imposed upon his guilty plea to conspiracy and possession with
intent to distribute 500 or more grams of cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). At sentencing, the
district court upheld the presentence report’s conclusion that
Gonzalez-Lopez was responsible for 5.5 kilograms of cocaine,
resulting in a base offense level of 32. After a two-level
enhancement for obstruction of justice by intimidating a
witness, a two-level enhancement for being an organizer or
leader, and a three-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility, Gonzalez-Lopez’s total offense level was 33.
With a criminal history category I, Gonzalez-Lopez’s advisory
Guidelines range was 135-168 months of imprisonment. The court
imposed a sentence at the bottom of the range. Gonzalez-Lopez
asserts that the district court erred in applying both
enhancements.
We review a sentence for procedural and substantive
reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In determining the
procedural reasonableness of a sentence, this court considers
whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines
range, treated the Guidelines as advisory, considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, analyzed any arguments
2
presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the
selected sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “In considering the
district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, [this
court] review[s] factual findings for clear error and legal
conclusions de novo.” United States v. Mehta, 594 F.3d 277, 281
(4th Cir. 2010).
A two-level increase to a defendant’s base offense
level is warranted “[i]f the defendant was an organizer, leader,
manager, or supervisor” in the charged offense and the offense
involved fewer than five participants. U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 3B1.1(c) (2011). The adjustment
applies if the defendant organized, led, managed, or supervised
one or more participants. USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. If a
defendant receives an adjustment for his role in the offense
under § 3B1.1, he may also receive a two-level enhancement where
“the defendant engaged in witness intimidation, tampered with or
destroyed evidence, or otherwise obstructed justice in
connection with the investigation or prosecution of the
offense.” USSG § 2D1.1(b)(14)(D).
We have reviewed the record and the arguments of the
parties and conclude that the district court did not clearly err
in finding that both enhancements should apply. Accordingly, we
affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4