USA v. Priscilla Cadena
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-50638 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: JWE , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 08/17/2012 for Appellant Priscilla Ann Cadena [11-50638]
Date Filed: 07/27/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
July 27, 2012
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PRISCILLA ANN CADENA, also known as Priscilla Cadena,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:10-CR-207-10
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Priscilla Ann Cadena pleaded guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute at least 1,000 kilograms of marijuana and conspiracy to commit
money laundering. She has appealed her sentence and contends that the district
court erred in determining the drug quantity attributable to her as relevant
The district court adopted the probation officer’s finding that Cadena aided
and abetted the distribution of 9,200 pounds (4,173.12 kilograms) of marijuana
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 07/27/2012
by her codefendant, James Cornelius, Jr. Because that finding was unrebutted,
the district court was entitled to adopt it without further inquiry or explanation.
See United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995). Cadena has not
shown that the district court’s drug-quantity finding was clearly erroneous. See
United States v. Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d 832, 878 (5th Cir. 1998). Moreover,
because Cadena was subject to a mandatory minimum 120-month term of
imprisonment, a reduction of her offense level would not have affected the length
of her sentence. Accordingly, any error in determining the drug quantity at
sentencing was harmless. See United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750,
752-53 (5th Cir. 2009). The judgment is
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?