USA v. Mateo Castillo-Ruela
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-50011 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: JLD , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 03/28/2014 for Appellant Mateo Castillo-Ruelas [13-50011]
Date Filed: 03/07/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
March 7, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:10-CR-779-4
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Mateo Castillo-Ruelas appeals the total 324-month sentence imposed
after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute
100 kilograms or more of marijuana, illegal reentry after having previously
been deported, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Castillo-Ruelas
argues that the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity and in
imposing an enhancement for obstruction of justice.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 03/07/2014
The district court’s calculation of the quantity of drugs involved in an
offense is a factual determination that we review for clear error. United States
v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005). Castillo-Ruelas’s mere opinion
that his brother’s testimony was not credible is not sufficient to undermine the
district court’s credibility determinations or rebut the reliability of the drug
quantity information contained in the presentence report (PSR). See United
States v. Montes, 602 F.3d 381, 384 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Ford, 558
F.3d 371, 376-77 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 832 (5th
The district court’s determination that a defendant obstructed justice
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 is also a factual finding that we review for clear
error. United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008).
Castillo-Ruelas’s mere objection to the obstruction of justice enhancement,
without more, does not suffice to rebut the truth, accuracy, or reliability of the
supporting evidence contained in the PSR. See id. at 208; see also Ford, 558
F.3d at 376-77.
The district court did not clearly err in calculating the drug quantity or
in imposing an obstruction of justice enhancement. See Betancourt, 422 F.3d
at 246; Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 208. Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
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?