United States v. Perez-Carrillo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-4167
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JULIAN PEREZ-CARRILLO, a/k/a Julian Valazquez,
a/k/a Julian Rivera-Cambero, a/k/a Arturo
Camacho-Cambero,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-00-188)
Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: October 9, 2001
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D. Thomas Lambeth, Jr., HEMRIC, LAMBETH, CHAMPION, & MOSELEY, P.A.,
Burlington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr.,
United States Attorney, Steven H. Levin, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Julian Perez-Carrillo appeals from the district court’s order
sentencing him to a 158 month term of imprisonment upon his
conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 846(1994), and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 21
U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1999). Perez-Carrillo contends on appeal that
his sentence was improperly enhanced for his role as a manager or
supervisor, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 3B1.1(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no reversible error. The evidence before
the court made clear that the crime involved five or more people.
Further, Perez-Carrillo hired several men to unload marijuana from
a truck and directed their actions, paid those men from his share
of the proceeds, and rented a storage facility for a shipment of
marijuana. In light of these facts, we have no difficulty con-
cluding that the enhancement was properly applied. USSG
§ 3B1.1(b), comment. (n.2); see United States v. Perkins, 108 F.3d
512, 518 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm Perez-Carrillo’s
conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2