United States v. Benito Chavira ( 2016 )

Case: 15-10635 Document: 00513499849 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-10635 FILED
Summary Calendar May 10, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
BENITO CHAVIRA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-19
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: *
Benito Chavira appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea
conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He
argues that the district court erred in relying on the confidential source’s drug
quantity information in the Presentence Report because there was no
corroborating evidence to support it.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-10635 Document: 00513499849 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2016
No. 15-10635
Because he did not challenge the reliability of the confidential source in
the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v.
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To prevail on plain
error review, Chavira must identify (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or
obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he satisfies these three requirements, this court
may, in its discretion, remedy the error if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
The amount of methamphetamine attributable to Chavira is a finding of
fact. See United States v. Harris, 740 F.3d 956, 966 (5th Cir. 2014). “Questions
of fact capable of resolution by the district court upon proper objection at
sentencing can never constitute plain error.” United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d
47, 50 (5th Cir. 1991). As such, the district court’s finding of the applicable
drug quantity cannot constitute plain error. See id.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2