United States v. Meraz

174 F. App'x 196

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 28, 2006
• Docket: 05-40286
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Frances Juanita Meraz appeals the district court’s sentence following her conviction of transporting illegal aliens for private financial gain in violation of 8 U.S.C § 1324. Meraz contends that the enhancement of her sentence for “reckless endangerment” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5) was unreasonable in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because she was not charged with reckless endangerment, she did not admit reckless endangerment, and the facts supporting the enhancement were not proved to the jury. She further asserts that the district court’s failure to make factual findings and the lack of any clear record supporting the enhancement renders the sentence unreasonable and requires remand for resen-tencing. Similarly, she contends that remand is required because the district court failed to make required factual findings regarding its denial of her request for a minor role adjustment.

Meraz’s arguments are without merit. As Meraz was sentenced after the decision in Booker, there was no requirement that any sentencing facts be charged, admitted, or proved to a jury; the district court was free to make factual findings in the same manner as before Booker. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005).

Further, as the Government correctly points out, the district court expressly adopted the findings of the Presentence Report in its Statement of Reasons. Adoption of the PSR is appropriate. See United States v. Peters, 283 F.3d 300, 314 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1231 (5th Cir.1994). Meraz makes no argument to the contrary, other than a conclusory assertion that the district court did not make required factual findings.

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* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.