UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 96-20840 & 96-20853
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
NORBERTO CORONADO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(CR-H-94-288-4)
September 19, 1997
Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:*
In two separate cases, now consolidated, Norberto Coronado pleaded guilty to conspiracy
to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. As a result of his pleas, Coronado was sentenced
to a term of imprisonment of 152 months.
Coronado argues that the district court erred in determining his sentence under the Sentencing
Guidelines. First, Coronado maintains that the district court failed to adjust his sentencing level to
*
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
account for his role as a minor or minimal participant. Coronado also argues that the district court
erred in adjusting upward adjustment his sentencing level for obstruction of justice. The government
denies that error was committed. 2
The district court found that Coronado was not a minor or minimal participant in either of the
crimes charged. We review this finding for clear error.3 In case No. 96-20853, Coronado negotiated
transactions, received at least one shipment of marijuana, and received money from later sellers of
the marijuana. In case No. 96-20840, Coronado rode with coconspirator Jose Maria Alcantar to the
warehouse from which marijuana was to be stolen. He also threatened the life of a confidential
informant after several other coconspirators were arrested at that warehouse. In the light of these
facts, we conclude that the district court’s conclusion was not clear error.
The district court also found that Coronado obstructed justice by threatening the confidential
informant. This threat was made after his coconspirators were arrested at the warehouse. Therefore,
Coronado knew or at least should have known that an investigation into the marijuana-theft
conspiracy was underway. A logical inference from the threat is that Coronado hoped to impede the
ongoing investigation. We hold, therefore, that the district court’s findings were not clearly
erroneous.4
2
The government also maintains that Coronado waived his right to appeal in his plea
agreement. A waiver of the right to appeal will be given effect provided that it is both informed and
voluntary. United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 244 (1994).
In the present case, however, we have insufficient information to determine whether the waiver was
voluntary because the government failed to introduce the transcript of the plea colloquy. Therefore,
we do not consider the government’s argument.
3
United States v. Giraldo-Lara, 919 F.2d 19, 22 (5h Cir. 1990).
4
See United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546, 1555 (5th Cir. 1993).
2
AFFIRMED.
3