United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 2, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-51427
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAURICIO GUZMAN-SALINAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:01-CR-1420-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mauricio Guzman-Salinas (Guzman) appeals the sentence
imposed following his plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of
cocaine and one count of aiding and abetting another to possess
with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine. We
affirm.
Guzman first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the district court’s imposition of a two-level
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-51427
-2-
increase under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 for Guzman’s role as a manager or
organizer. We review the district court’s factual findings for
clear error. United States v. Creech, 408 F.3d 264, 270 n.2
(5th Cir. 2005), pet. for cert. filed (Oct. 11, 2005) (No. 05-
7201). In its written statement of reasons, the district court
adopted the findings of the Presentence Report (PSR), which set
forth facts showing that Guzman coordinated transportation of the
load of cocaine at issue, took control of the operation after
Manuel Zuniga became ill, and instructed the driver of the load
regarding its delivery. Given these facts, the district court’s
conclusion that the enhancement was appropriate was not clearly
erroneous. See United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 725 (5th
Cir. 2003) (§ 3B1.1 enhancement was appropriate where defendant
directed activities of another in sending and accepting packages
regarding marijuana and paid him for those services); United
States v. Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 690 (5th Cir. 1995) (a PSR
generally bears sufficient indica of reliability to support a
district court’s factual findings).
Guzman next contends that the district court’s imposition of
the enhancement based on facts neither admitted by him nor found
by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt violated his Sixth Amendment
rights pursuant to United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738
(2005). We reject Guzman’s argument that his objection to
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the enhancement preserved
this issue for appeal, as his objection did not sufficiently
No. 04-51427
-3-
alert the district court that Guzman was raising a Sixth
Amendment challenge. See, e.g., United States v. Pennell, 409
F.3d 240, 244-45 (5th Cir. 2005). Thus, we review for plain
error. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Guzman has not shown that
any Sixth Amendment error affected his substantial rights,
because there is nothing in the record to indicate that the
district court would have reached a significantly different
result under an advisory rather than a mandatory Sentencing
Guidelines scheme. See id. For the same reason, we reject
Guzman’s additional unpreserved challenges to the district
court’s determination of drug quantity and its application of the
Guidelines as mandatory. See id.; see also United States v.
Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied,
S. Ct. , 2005 WL 2494163 (Oct. 11, 2005) (No. 05-6242).
AFFIRMED.