United States v. Perales

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 4, 2003
• Docket: 02-50424
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-50424 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN GARCES PERALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-01-CR-75-1 --------------------

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Garces Perales appeals the sentence imposed by the

district court upon his plea of guilty to possession with intent to

distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting in violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Finding no

error we affirm.

Perales contends that the district court erred in

determining drug quantity because the statements of a confidential

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-50424 -2-

informant (“CI”) were unreliable. In making its drug quantity

determination, the district court considered the CI’s statements

contained in the PSR as well as the testimony of a narcotics

officer involved in the investigation of Perales. The officer

testified that several people, other than the CI, reported

information linking Perales to large quantities of methamphetamine.

The district court did not clearly err in determining that Perales

was accountable for 16.7 kilograms of methamphetamine under

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. United States v. Taylor, 277 F.3d 721, 724 (5th

Cir. 2001); United States v. Alfaro, 919 F.2d 962, 966 (5th Cir.

1990).

Perales also argues that, in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122

S. Ct. 2428 (2002), the district court plainly erred in using a

preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to determine drug quantity.

Because the 235-month sentence imposed did not exceed the 240-month

statutory maximum sentence allowed by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C),

there is no Apprendi violation. See United States v. Clinton, 256

F.3d 311, 314 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 492 (2001).

Because the district court’s drug quantity determination did not

subject Perales to the death penalty, Ring is inapposite to his

case. See Ring, 122 S. Ct. at 2443.

AFFIRMED.