USA v. Andrew Delfeld

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11666 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: JWE , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 09/12/2017 for Appellant Andrew Carlos Delfeld [16-11666]

Case: 16-11666

Document: 00514126683

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/22/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-11666
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 22, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ANDREW CARLOS DELFELD, also known as “Draven”,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CR-112-2
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Andrew Carlos Delfeld appeals the 240-month sentence imposed for his
conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled
substance. He argues that the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) when it denied an adjustment under U.S.S.G.
§ 3E1.1 without entering specific factual findings resolving his argument that
this is an “extraordinary case” in which he should receive the adjustment for

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-11666

Document: 00514126683

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/22/2017

No. 16-11666
acceptance of responsibility despite his conduct supporting an enhancement
for obstruction of justice. Because Delfeld did not object in the district court to
the alleged failure to comply with Rule 32(i)(3)(B), review is for plain error.
See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009).
The district court made implicit findings by adopting the presentence
report, which satisfied Rule 32 because the findings are so clear that this court
is not left to “‘second-guess’” the basis for the denial of the § 3E1.1 adjustment.
United States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez, 840 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2016). Delfeld
has not demonstrated error, plain or otherwise, under Rule 32(i)(3)(B). See
Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 361.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2