United States v. Alberto Ceja-Vargas , 630 F. App'x 341 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 15-40495      Document: 00513344425         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/15/2016
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 15-40495                                  FILED
    Summary Calendar                         January 15, 2016
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    ALBERTO CEJA-VARGAS, also known as Alan Renteria-Vargas, also known
    as Jose Hernandez-Cardenas,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:13-CR-175
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Alberto Ceja-Vargas pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the
    intent to distribute and distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing
    methamphetamine and/or 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual) and
    100 kilograms or more of marijuana or 100 or more marijuana plants. The
    district court imposed the advisory guidelines sentence of life imprisonment.
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 15-40495   Document: 00513344425     Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/15/2016
    No. 15-40495
    Ceja-Vargas first challenges the district court’s finding on the amount of
    drugs for which he was held responsible for sentencing purposes.                The
    presentence report (PSR) and sentencing testimony showed that Ceja-Vargas
    led the Dallas, Texas cell of a drug trafficking organization in 2010 and 2011;
    that     the   organization   transported    kilogram       quantities   of   liquid
    methamphetamine from Mexico to Dallas approximately two times per week;
    that the drugs were then converted at the organization’s Dallas-area stash
    house to methamphetamine ice or crystal methamphetamine for further
    distribution; that Ceja-Vargas left the United States and returned to Mexico
    in February or March 2012; and that 5.94 kilograms of methamphetamine
    (actual) were seized from the stash house in September 2012. In addition,
    Ceja-Vargas presented no evidence that he affirmatively withdrew from the
    conspiracy or renounced it. See United States v. Torres, 
    114 F.3d 520
    , 525 (5th
    Cir. 1997).     Considering the record as a whole, it is plausible that the
    methamphetamine found at the stash house was reasonably foreseeable to
    Ceja-Vargas as a participant in a jointly undertaken criminal activity; thus,
    the district court did not clearly err in determining that he was responsible for
    the 5.94 kilograms of methamphetamine (actual).              See United States v.
    Carreon, 
    11 F.3d 1225
    , 1230 (5th Cir. 1994).
    Next, Ceja-Vargas argues that the district court clearly erred in applying
    a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) based on a finding that
    a firearm was possessed. This argument ignores the record evidence that
    placed Ceja-Vargas at the stash house prior to his relocating to Mexico in early
    2012; that Ceja-Vargas’s co-conspirators knowingly possessed firearms at the
    stash house in order to further the conspiracy; and that the co-conspirators’
    possession was reasonably foreseeable to Ceja-Vargas.            Such evidence is
    sufficient to support the district court’s imposition of the enhancement under
    2
    Case: 15-40495    Document: 00513344425     Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/15/2016
    No. 15-40495
    § 2D1.1(b)(1). See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 
    517 F.3d 751
    , 765-66
    (5th Cir. 2008).
    Ceja-Vargas also challenges the district court’s four-level role
    enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), arguing that there was insufficient
    evidence to establish that he had a substantial leadership role in the
    conspiracy. This argument is unavailing, however, as the PSR and sentencing
    testimony reflected that Ceja-Vargas held a high role in the cartel; that he was
    the boss of the Dallas cell for a two-year period; that he recruited others into
    the conspiracy’s activities; and that he oversaw and organized deliveries of
    contraband to and from Mexico. The evidence thus was sufficient to support
    the district court’s finding that Ceja-Vargas was a leader or organizer of the
    conspiracy. See United States v. Villanueva, 
    408 F.3d 193
    , 204 (5th Cir. 2005);
    see also United States v. Cabrera, 
    288 F.3d 163
    , 175 n.13 (5th Cir. 2002) (noting
    that more than one person can be a leader).
    Ceja-Vargas next contends that his guidelines sentence is substantively
    unreasonable because his co-conspirators were not sentenced to life in prison
    and because the facts set forth in the PSR warranted a lesser sentence.
    Because he did not raise a substantive reasonableness argument in the district
    court, his contentions are reviewed for plain error only. See United States v.
    Peltier, 
    505 F.3d 389
    , 392 (5th Cir. 2007). Ceja-Vargas has not made the
    requisite showing.    Rather, his arguments amount to no more than a
    disagreement with the propriety of the sentence imposed, which does not
    suffice to show substantive unreasonableness. See United States v. Ruiz, 
    621 F.3d 390
    , 398 (5th Cir. 2010).
    Finally, Ceja-Vargas argues for the first time on appeal that the life
    sentence imposed by the district court constitutes cruel and unusual
    punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. However, the threshold
    3
    Case: 15-40495    Document: 00513344425     Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/15/2016
    No. 15-40495
    comparison between the gravity of his offense and the severity of his sentence
    does not reflect that the life sentence is grossly disproportionate. See United
    States v. Thomas, 
    627 F.3d 146
    , 160 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Ceja-Vargas
    has not shown plain error in regard to this constitutional claim. See United
    States v. Ebron, 
    683 F.3d 105
    , 155 (5th Cir. 2012).
    AFFIRMED.
    4