United States v. Balboa ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-40457
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT ALVARES SOLIZ, also
known as Beto,
Defendant-Appellant,
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-94-CR-199-1
- - - - - - - - - -
* * * * * * * * * *
_________________
95-40459
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL TEODORO BALBOA,
Defendant-Appellant,
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-94-CR-199-8
No. 95-40457
No. 95-40459
No. 95-40460
- 2 -
- - - - - - - - - -
* * * * * * * * * *
_________________
95-40460
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REYNALDO CELSO SOLIZ,
also known as Mary Alton Ray,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-94-CR-199-9
- - - - - - - - - -
October 21, 1996
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The only issues presented for appeal are whether the
district court erred by enhancing Robert Alvares Soliz’s sentence
for possession of a firearm and whether the district court erred
by relying upon the hearsay statements of a confidential
informant without allowing Soliz to call the informant for
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-40457
No. 95-40459
No. 95-40460
- 3 -
examination to rebut the reliability of the statements.
The district court did not clearly err by enhancing Soliz’s
sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(2) for firearms possession.
The Government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it
was not clearly improbable that the firearms present in Soliz’s
residence were sufficiently connected to his drug-trafficking
crimes. See United States v. Eastland, 989 F.2d 760, 770 (5th
Cir. 1993); United States v. Paulk, 917 F.2d 879, 882 (5th Cir.
1990). The record does not reflect any reliance or consideration
by the district court on a confidential informant’s out-of-court
statements in arriving at its drug quantity calculation. See
United States v. Fitzgerald, 89 F.3d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 1996).
Daniel Teodoro Balboa and Reynaldo Celso Soliz adopted
Soliz’s appellate brief and did not raise any independent issues
for appellate review.
AFFIRMED.