United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 4, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-50424
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN GARCES PERALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-01-CR-75-1
--------------------
Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Garces Perales appeals the sentence imposed by the
district court upon his plea of guilty to possession with intent to
distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Finding no
error we affirm.
Perales contends that the district court erred in
determining drug quantity because the statements of a confidential
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 02-50424
-2-
informant (“CI”) were unreliable. In making its drug quantity
determination, the district court considered the CI’s statements
contained in the PSR as well as the testimony of a narcotics
officer involved in the investigation of Perales. The officer
testified that several people, other than the CI, reported
information linking Perales to large quantities of methamphetamine.
The district court did not clearly err in determining that Perales
was accountable for 16.7 kilograms of methamphetamine under
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. United States v. Taylor, 277 F.3d 721, 724 (5th
Cir. 2001); United States v. Alfaro, 919 F.2d 962, 966 (5th Cir.
1990).
Perales also argues that, in light of Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122
S. Ct. 2428 (2002), the district court plainly erred in using a
preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to determine drug quantity.
Because the 235-month sentence imposed did not exceed the 240-month
statutory maximum sentence allowed by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C),
there is no Apprendi violation. See United States v. Clinton, 256
F.3d 311, 314 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 492 (2001).
Because the district court’s drug quantity determination did not
subject Perales to the death penalty, Ring is inapposite to his
case. See Ring, 122 S. Ct. at 2443.
AFFIRMED.