United States v. Farias-Sandoval

308 F. App'x 815
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 28, 2009
Docket08-10336
StatusUnpublished

This text of 308 F. App'x 815 (United States v. Farias-Sandoval) 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. Farias-Sandoval, 308 F. App'x 815 (5th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Silvia Selene Farias-Sandoval pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The district court sentenced Fa-rias-Sandoval to 87 months in prison. Fa-rias-Sandoval argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity attributable to her as relevant conduct under the Sentencing Guidelines.

Because Farias-Sandoval did not object in the district court to the drug quantity attributed to her, our review is for plain error. United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Sparks, 2 F.3d 574, 589 (5th Cir.1993). Questions of fact that the sentencing court could have resolved upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain error. United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th Cir.1991). Because a district court’s determination of the quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant is a finding of fact, see United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.1995) (drug quantity attributable to defendant is a factual finding), Farias-Sandoval cannot show plain error. See Sparks, 2 F.3d at 589. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

Related

United States v. Sparks
2 F.3d 574 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Vital
68 F.3d 114 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Robert Lopez
923 F.2d 47 (Fifth Circuit, 1991)
United States v. Rodriguez
523 F.3d 519 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
308 F. App'x 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-farias-sandoval-ca5-2009.