United States v. Alonso-Flores
This text of United States v. Alonso-Flores (United States v. Alonso-Flores) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20489 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALEJANDRO ALONSO-FLORES,
Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-671-1 -------------------- April 12, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alejandro Alonso-Flores appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess
and aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute
cocaine. Alonso argues that the district court erred in
determining that he was responsible for in excess of 150
kilograms of cocaine.
Alonso has filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental
brief based on Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999) and
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). Alonso’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 00-20489 -2-
original brief was filed more than a year after the decision in
Jones and more than four months after the decision in Apprendi.
His motion is denied.
A sentencing court’s determination of the quantity of drugs
attributable to the defendant for purposes of calculating a
defendant’s sentence is a factual finding that is reviewed for
clear error. United States v. Vine, 62 F.3d 107, 109 (5th Cir.
1995). Because the district court’s determination that more than
150 kilograms was attributable to Alonso is plausible in light of
the entire record, it is not clearly erroneous. See United
States v. Perez, 217 F.3d 323, 331 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 121
S. Ct. 416 (2000). Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the
district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Alonso-Flores, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-alonso-flores-ca5-2001.