United States v. Gallardo

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided July 21, 2023·No. 22-40500·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-40500 Document: 00516829186 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED July 21, 2023 No. 22-40500 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jose Rodrigo Gallardo,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:21-CR-1329-1 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jose Rodrigo Gallardo pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. On appeal, he challenges a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) based on the district court’s finding that the offense involved imported methamphetamine.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-40500 Document: 00516829186 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2023

No. 22-40500

The district court’s factual finding is reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Brune, 991 F.3d 652, 667 (5th Cir. 2021). Gallardo argues that the district court erred by relying on the pre-sentencing report’s note that he “had made statements that he was dealing with the ‘cartel.’” Based on the record evidence regarding his association with an identified Mexican cartel and his involvement with a large quantity of methamphetamine, the district court did not clearly err in imposing the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement. See id. at 667 & n.46. AFFIRMED.

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

United States v. Gallardo, (5th Cir. 2023).

United States v. Gallardo (United States v. Gallardo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Brune
991 F.3d 652 (Fifth Circuit, 2021)