IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50611
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SANTOS ARNOLDO FERNANDEZ, also known as Sonny,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-00-CR-156-2-JN
--------------------
April 19, 2002
Before DeMoss, Parker, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Santos Arnoldo Fernandez appeals his sentence following
conviction for three counts of conspiracy and possession with
intent to distribute illegal narcotics. Fernandez argues that the
district court was clearly erroneous in determining his role in the
offense. We review a district court’s determination of, for
sentencing guidelines purposes, a defendant’s role in the offense
for clear error. United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 446 (5th
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
1
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 823 (2002).
Section 3B1.1(b) of the sentencing guidelines provides for a
three-level increase “[i]f the defendant was a manager or
supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal
activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise
extensive.” The district court’s finding is supported by the
testimony of the FBI agent Greg Smith that his surveillance showed
that Fernandez’s role was that of “chief lieutenant, most trusted
confidante, ... enforcer.” Fernandez has not shown that Smith’s
testimony was unreliable. See United States v. Patterson, 962 F.2d
409, 415 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court did not clearly err
by finding that Fernandez was a manager or supervisor of the
criminal activity not a minor participant and by adjusting the
offense level accordingly.
Fernandez argues that the district court erred by finding that
he obstructed justice and increasing his offense level under §
3C1.1 of the sentencing guidelines. This is a factual finding
reviewed for clear error. United States v. Upton, 91 F.3d 677, 687
(5th Cir. 1996). A codefendant testified that Fernandez threatened
him about testifying by stating that anyone who “talked” would be
killed “along with their family.” The district court did not
clearly err by applying § 3C1.1 to Fernandez's sentence.
AFFIRMED.
2