United States v. Morales ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40061
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAVIER MORALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-96-CR-314-4
--------------------
November 10, 1999
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Javier Morales pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1000 kilograms of
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) &
(b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Morales to 151 months’
imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release. Morales
appeals his sentence.
Morales contends that this court must remand for sentencing
because the coconspirators’ statements relied on by the district
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-40061
-2-
court are not part of the record on appeal. The Government has
moved to supplement the record with the coconspirators statements
and the transcripts of Morales’s rearraigment and sentencing
hearings. The motion is GRANTED, and this argument is therefore
moot.
Morales argues that the district court did not make explicit
findings concerning Morales’s relevant conduct in the marijuana-
transportation conspiracy. Morales did not object to the
district court’s findings under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, and thus
review is for plain error. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d
160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Morales has failed to meet
his burden of showing that the district court committed a clear
or obvious error either in its explicit findings or the findings
implicit in its adoption of the presentence report. See United
States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1231 (5th Cir. 1994).
Morales also contends that the district court erred in
calculating the amount of marijuana attributable to him because
the information on which the district court relied, including the
presentence report, did not possess sufficient indicia of
reliability. This court reviews a district court’s factual
findings concerning the quantity of drugs implicated by the crime
for clear error. United States v. Davis, 76 F.3d 82, 84 (5th
Cir. 1996). Our review of the record reveals no clear error in
the district court’s finding that more than 3000 kilograms of
marijuana was attributable to Morales owing to the role he played
in the conspiracy.
AFFIRMED.