United States v. Duarte

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 4, 2003
Docket02-10854
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Duarte (United States v. Duarte) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Duarte, (5th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 4, 2003

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

No. 02-10854 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FERMIN DUARTE,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:01-CR-331-3-P --------------------

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fermin Duarte appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea

conviction for conspiring to possess amphetamine with intent to

distribute. He contends that the district court erred in relying

upon the presentence report (PSR) for the drug quantity because the

PSR lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to support the

calculations. He has not established that the PSR lacked

sufficient indicia of reliability for sentencing purposes. Cf.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-10854 -2-

United States v. Shacklett, 921 F.2d 580, 584 (5th Cir. 1991).

Because Duarte did not dispute the findings of the PSR, he cannot

show that the district court clearly erred in relying upon the

information contained in the PSR. See United States v. Alford, 142

F.3d 825, 832 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Davis, 76 F.3d 82,

84 (5th Cir. 1996).

Duarte also contends that the district court erred in denying

him a reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for his role as a

minor or minimal participant in the conspiracy. He has not

established that the district court committed clear error in

denying the reduction. See United States v. Gallegos, 868 F.2d

711, 713 (5th Cir. 1989). The judgment of the district court is

therefore AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Davis
76 F.3d 82 (Fifth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Virgil Shacklett
921 F.2d 580 (Fifth Circuit, 1991)
United States v. Billy Mel Alford
142 F.3d 825 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Duarte, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-duarte-ca5-2003.