United States v. Soliz

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40457 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT ALVARES SOLIZ, also known as Beto,

Defendant-Appellant,

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-94-CR-199-1 - - - - - - - - - -

* * * * * * * * * *

_________________

95-40459 _________________

DANIEL TEODORO BALBOA, Defendant-Appellant,

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-94-CR-199-8 No. 95-40457 No. 95-40459 No. 95-40460 - 2 -

- - - - - - - - - -

95-40460 _________________

REYNALDO CELSO SOLIZ, also known as Mary Alton Ray,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-94-CR-199-9 - - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The only issues presented for appeal are whether the

district court erred by enhancing Robert Alvares Soliz’s sentence

for possession of a firearm and whether the district court erred

by relying upon the hearsay statements of a confidential

informant without allowing Soliz to call the informant for

* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. No. 95-40457 No. 95-40459 No. 95-40460 - 3 -

examination to rebut the reliability of the statements.

The district court did not clearly err by enhancing Soliz’s

sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(2) for firearms possession.

The Government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it

was not clearly improbable that the firearms present in Soliz’s

residence were sufficiently connected to his drug-trafficking

crimes. See United States v. Eastland, 989 F.2d 760, 770 (5th

Cir. 1993); United States v. Paulk, 917 F.2d 879, 882 (5th Cir.

1990). The record does not reflect any reliance or consideration

by the district court on a confidential informant’s out-of-court

statements in arriving at its drug quantity calculation. See

United States v. Fitzgerald, 89 F.3d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 1996).

Daniel Teodoro Balboa and Reynaldo Celso Soliz adopted

Soliz’s appellate brief and did not raise any independent issues

for appellate review.

AFFIRMED.