United States v. Jonathan Hensley

Case: 14-51233 Document: 00513149281 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 14-51233 August 11, 2015
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
JONATHAN LEELIND HENSLEY, Also Known as GG,
Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:14-CR-132-1
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jonathan Hensley appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction
of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual
methamphetamine. For the first time on appeal, Hensley claims that the dis-
trict court plainly erred by applying a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-51233 Document: 00513149281 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2015
No. 14-51233
Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.1(c) for his being an organizer, leader, manager,
or supervisor of the criminal activity. He asserts that the facts set forth in the
presentence report showed that he managed only the property, assets, or activ-
ities of the criminal activity but not any of the participants. He contends that
the enhancement is applicable only where a defendant exerts control over other
participants.
Because Hensley did not raise that issue in the district court, we review
it for plain error only. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
To establish plain error, Hensley must show a forfeited error that is clear or
obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See id. If he makes such a
showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but should do so only if the
error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. See id.The government has moved for summary affirmance on the ground that
the sole issue raised by Hensley is foreclosed. A two-level enhancement under
§ 3B1.1(c) is appropriate where the defendant exercised control over either
another participant in the criminal activity or the property, assets, or activities
of the criminal activity. United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 345 (5th Cir.
2012) (en banc); see also United States v. Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d 278, 282–83
(5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, as Hensley concedes, his argument is foreclosed.
See Delgado, 672 F.3d at 345.
The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The government’s
alternative motion to extend the time to file its brief is DENIED as
unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
2