United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 29, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40740
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
OMAR RODRIGUEZ-TAMEZ
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:02-CR-1146-1
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Omar Rodriguez-Tamez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine.
He appealed his 135-month sentence, arguing that the district
court clearly erred in imposing a two-level enhancement based on
his role as a manager or supervisor in the offense, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). This court agreed and vacated Rodriguez-
Tamez’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing as to
this issue, without prejudice to the possibility that an upward
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 04-40740
-2-
departure might be warranted for Rodriguez-Tamez’s management
responsibility of the property, assets or activities of the
conspiracy.
On remand the district court the district court again
sentenced Rodriguez-Tamez to 135 months of imprisonment, for the
following reasons. The court found that Rodriguez-Tamez played a
supervisory role in the offense and applied the U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.1(C) two-level enhancement. Alternatively, the court
upwardly departed two levels because Rodriguez-Tamez’s exercised
management responsibility over the assets of the criminal
organization. Alternatively, the district court stated that it
would withdraw the two-level downward departure, given at the
original sentencing because Rodriguez-Tamez was an alien who was
going to be deported. As a final alternative, the district court
found that (without any of the above adjustments) the total
offense level was 31 and that the high end of the applicable
guideline range was 135 months.
Rodriguez-Tamez argues the district court clearly erred in
finding that he was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor
in the offense and in applying the two-level enhancement under
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). Rodriguez-Tamez does not address any of the
district court’s alternative reasons for imposing the 135-month
sentence; accordingly, he has abandoned any argument that these
alternative grounds for the sentence were erroneous. See United
States v. Brace, 145 F.3d 247, 261 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc)
No. 04-40740
-3-
(“[W]e do not address issues not presented to us.”); Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Even if this court
were to hold that the district court’s finding that he played a
supervisory role in the offense was clearly erroneous, Rodriguez-
Tamez has provided no argument that the 135-month sentence should
not be upheld on any of these alternative grounds
AFFIRMED.