USA v. Miguel Martinez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [16-11236 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: ECP , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 06/20/2017 for Appellant Miguel Antonio Martinez [16-11236]

Case: 16-11236

Document: 00514011999

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/30/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-11236
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
May 30, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
MIGUEL ANTONIO MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CR-21-2
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Miguel Antonio Martinez appeals his sentence for his guilty-plea
conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
He challenges the district court’s application of sentencing enhancements
under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for the purpose of
manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance and U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b)
for a role as a manager or supervisor in the conspiracy.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-11236

Document: 00514011999

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/30/2017

No. 16-11236
While our court reviews the district court’s application of the Sentencing
Guidelines de novo, United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 202-03 & n.9
(5th Cir. 2005), “[a] district court’s application of § 2D1.1(b)(12) is a factual
finding reviewed for clear error,” United States v. Haines, 803 F.3d 713, 744
(5th Cir. 2015), cert. denied sub nom. Iturres-Bonilla v. United States, 2017
U.S. LEXIS 2871 (May 1, 2017) (No. 16-8544). We also review for clear error
the factual finding that a defendant was a manager or a supervisor under §
3B1.1(b). United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 756 F.3d 422, 434-35 (5th Cir.
2014).
For the § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement to apply, the drug-related activity
“need not be the sole purpose for which the premises was maintained.” Haines,
803 F.3d at 744 (quoting § 2D1.1(b)(12), comment. (n.17)); see United States v.
Romans, 823 F.3d 299, 321 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 195 (2016).
Martinez presented no evidence to rebut the assertions in the adopted
presentence report (PSR) that a principal purpose of the premises was drug
distribution. In light of the unrebutted PSR, United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d
586, 619 (5th Cir. 2013), the district court’s application of the enhancement
was not clearly erroneous.
The § 3B1.1(b) role enhancement applies if (1) “the defendant exercised
managerial control over one or more of the other participants in the offense”
and (2) the offense involved five or more participants or was otherwise
extensive. Rodriguez-Lopez, 756 F.3d at 434-35. Martinez first argues that
the district court (1) failed to adequately explain its reasoning and (2) erred by
solely relying on the PSR. However, the district court considered the parties’
arguments, allowed the parties to submit evidence, and briefly explained its
reasoning, including the unrebutted adoption of the PSR’s more detailed
findings. See Alaniz, 726 F.3d at 619. The court’s explanation was adequate.

2

Case: 16-11236

Document: 00514011999

Page: 3

Date Filed: 05/30/2017

No. 16-11236
See United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 2013). Martinez has
not shown any procedural error.
Nor has Martinez has shown any substantive error in the court’s
application of § 3B1.1(b). His distribution of methamphetamine to various coconspirators, who redistributed the drugs, and his direction of co-conspirators
show sufficient “planning and control” over the drug conspiracy.

See

Rodriguez-Lopez, 756 F.3d at 436; United States v. Akins, 746 F.3d 590, 610
(5th Cir. 2014). Lastly, although Martinez argues that the criminal activity
was not “otherwise extensive,” the district court ruled that the offense involved
five or more participants, and Martinez has not challenged that finding. As
either finding establishes the second element, this portion of his challenge is
inadequate to establish error. See Rodriguez-Lopez, 756 F.3d at 434-35; United
States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.

3