United States v. Meraz , 174 F. App'x 196 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40286
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANCES JUANITA MERAZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:04-CR-1454-2
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Frances Juanita Meraz appeals the district court’s sentence
following her conviction of transporting illegal aliens for
private financial gain in violation of 8 U.S.C § 1324. Meraz
contends that the enhancement of her sentence for “reckless
endangerment” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5) was unreasonable
in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because
she was not charged with reckless endangerment, she did not admit
reckless endangerment, and the facts supporting the enhancement
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40286
-2-
were not proved to the jury. She further asserts that the
district court’s failure to make factual findings and the lack of
any clear record supporting the enhancement renders the sentence
unreasonable and requires remand for resentencing. Similarly,
she contends that remand is required because the district court
failed to make required factual findings regarding its denial of
her request for a minor role adjustment.
Meraz’s arguments are without merit. As Meraz was sentenced
after the decision in Booker, there was no requirement that any
sentencing facts be charged, admitted, or proved to a jury; the
district court was free to make factual findings in the same
manner as before Booker. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d
511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).
Further, as the Government correctly points out, the
district court expressly adopted the findings of the Presentence
Report in its Statement of Reasons. Adoption of the PSR is
appropriate. See United States v. Peters, 283 F.3d 300, 314 (5th
Cir. 2002); United States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1231 (5th
Cir. 1994). Meraz makes no argument to the contrary, other than
a conclusory assertion that the district court did not make
required factual findings.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.