United States v. Sanchez

208 F. App'x 350
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Sanchez. Read the opinion of the Court — 484 F.3d 803
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided December 8, 2006·No. 06-40236·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Gloria Elva Sanchez appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following her guilty plea to one count of transporting an alien for private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. Sanchez contends that the district court erred when it increased her base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2Ll.l(b)(5) for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. ‘We review a district court’s interpretation of the guidelines de novo and its factual determinations for clear error.” United States v. Solis-Garcia, 420 F.3d 511, 514 (5th Cir. 2005).

The conduct for which Sanchez pleaded guilty involved transporting aliens in a camper-covered pickup truck. According to the presentence report, the relevant portions of which the district court adopted, the aliens were concealed by blankets and piñatas. One of the aliens, a 12-year-old child, was breathing “profoundly” when removed from the truck. The district court did not err in imposing *351 the enhancement for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. See United States v. Zuniga-Amezquita, 468 F.3d 886, 889 (5th Cir. 2006). 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

United States v. Sanchez, 208 F. App'x 350 (5th Cir. 2006).

208 F. App'x 350 (United States v. Sanchez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Solis-Garcia
420 F.3d 511 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Zuniga-Amezquita
468 F.3d 886 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)