United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 25, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41411
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIO ALBERTO BELTRAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CR-100-16
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mario Alberto Beltran appeals the sentence that he received
after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute or dispense
or possess with intent to distribute or dispense “Ecstasy,” more
than 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable
amount of cocaine, more than 500 grams of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, and “GHB.”
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-41411
-2-
Beltran argues that the Government did not meet its burden
of proving that the isomers in the methamphetamine that was
tested was d-methamphetamine or l-methamphetamine. Any
distinction in the isomers is immaterial to Beltran’s sentence.
See Sentencing Guidelines, Amendment 518; United States v.
Domino, 62 F.3d 716, 719-720 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, Beltran
fails to show that the district court erred when it attributed
292.12 grams of Methamphetamine (actual) to him. See United
States v. Medina, 161 F.3d 867, 876 (5th Cir. 1998); United
States v. Lowder, 148 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir. 1998). Beltran’s
argument that the district court’s ruling on his motion for a
downward departure was ambiguous is without merit inasmuch as
Beltran does not argue that the departure was in violation of the
law or unreasonable. See United States v. Hashimoto, 193 F.3d
840, 843 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Lee, 989 F.2d 180, 183
(5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.