United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 16, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10319
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALEJANDRA BRISEDA PEREZ, also known as Dalia Arrellano-Gomez,
also known as Alejandrea Briseda Perez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CR-281-1-A
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alejandra Briseda Perez (“Perez”) appeals the sentence
imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for alien smuggling
for private financial gain. Perez argues that the district court
erred by finding that she was an organizer or leader of the
criminal activity and applying a four-level enhancement pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). For the first time on appeal, Perez
asserts that the application of the four-level enhancement was
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-10319
-2-
unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531
(2004).
The district court’s application of a U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1
adjustment is a factual matter that is reviewed for clear error.
United States v. Dadi, 235 F.3d 945, 951 (5th Cir. 2000). “A
factual finding is not clearly erroneous as long as the finding
is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United States
v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 432 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). The undisputed evidence showed that
Perez recruited co-defendant Carlos Linan-Salinas; exercised
control over his actions; and maintained a log of the names,
destinations, and fees to be paid by the illegal aliens. Given
these facts and “the extreme deference of the ‘clear error’
standard,” the district court’s application of the four-level
enhancement for Perez being an organizer or leader of the
criminal activity was not clearly erroneous. See United States
v. Lowder, 148 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 1998).
As Perez concedes, her Blakely argument is foreclosed by
this court’s decision in United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464,
473 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14,
2004) (No. 04-5263).
AFFIRMED.