IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50105
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BENITO MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-01-CR-316-1-DB
--------------------
January 29, 2003
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
A jury convicted Benito Martinez of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana,
and he was sentenced to 130 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
Martinez argues that his sentence should be vacated and this
matter remanded for re-sentencing because the district court:
(1) did not comply with FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(3)(A); (2) erred by
assessing him a two-level adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50105
-2-
§ 3B1.1(c); and (3) erred in determining the amount of marijuana
attributable to him.
Martinez first argues that the district court’s failure to
determine that he and his counsel had read and discussed the
presentence report was a violation of FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(3)(A)
which constitutes reversible error. Martinez did not raise this
issue below, and therefore we review for plain error. United
States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 272, 273-74 (5th Cir. 2001),
cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1547 (2002). Martinez has not shown
what additional arguments he could have made that might have
resulted in a lower sentence. Thus, Martinez has failed to show
plain error. See id.; United States v. Vasquez, 216 F.3d 456,
459 (5th Cir. 2000).
Next, Martinez argues that the district court erred in
finding that he was a leader or organizer of criminal activity
and in increasing his offense level by two levels pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The facts presented in the presentence
report and the evidence adduced at trial support the district
court’s finding that Martinez was an organizer or leader of
a conspiracy to distribute marijuana. See United States
v. Glinsey, 209 F.3d 386, 396 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
531 U.S. 919 (2000).
Finally, Martinez argues that the district court erred in
attributing 560 kilograms of marijuana to him because only 267
kilograms of marijuana were actually seized in this case. The
No. 02-50105
-3-
district court did not clearly err in finding that 560 kilograms
of marijuana should be attributed to Martinez. See United States
v. Morris, 46 F.3d 410, 422 (5th Cir. 1995); United States
v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.