United States v. Garza ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 19, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20610
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JORGE LUIS GARZA,
also known as Guillermo Heurta-Sanchez,
also known as Mono Renzo,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CR-455-2
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jorge Luis Garza appeals his sentence imposed following his
jury trial convictions for aiding and abetting and conspiracy to
launder money and to distribute five or more kilograms of
cocaine. Counsel for Garza has filed a motion seeking judicial
notice of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The
motion is GRANTED. Garza has separately filed a pro se motion,
also seeking judicial notice of Blakely. Garza’s pro se motion
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-20610
-2-
is DENIED. See United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447, 449 & n.1
(5th Cir. 1999); see also 5TH CIR. R. 28.7.
Garza argues that the district court erred in granting the
Government an extension of time sua sponte to lodge an untimely
objection to the Presentence Report (PSR). The district court
granted the Government leave to file the untimely objection based
on the PSR’s failure to assess a two-level kidnaping enhancement
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3. The court rescheduled the
sentencing hearing, noting that it was important that the PSR be
correct and that Garza be provided with an opportunity to
respond.
We review rulings on untimely objections under FED. R. CRIM.
P. 32(i)(1)(D) for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Chung, 261 F.3d 536, 539 (5th Cir. 2001). Because the district
court’s ruling was supported by an implicit finding of good
cause, there was no abuse of discretion. See id.AFFIRMED.