Case: 19-20014 Document: 00515106269 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 19-20014 FILED
Summary Calendar September 5, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ROMAN PINEDA PINEDA, also known as Hippie,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CR-143-4
Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: *
Roman Pineda Pineda was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment
following his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500
grams or more of methamphetamine and for possession with intent to
distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, Pineda Pineda
contends that the district court erred by finding that his offense involved the
importation of methamphetamine, which resulted in a two-level enhancement
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 19-20014 Document: 00515106269 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2019
No. 19-20014
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5). We review the district court’s factual
determination that the offense involved the importation of methamphetamine
for clear error. See United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 550, 553─54 (5th
Cir. 2012).
At sentencing, the Government presented testimony from an
experienced federal agent that, in light of the large quantity and the high
purity level of the methamphetamine in this case, the drugs had been imported
from Mexico. The same agent also testified regarding intercepted telephone
calls between a co-defendant and an unknown man in Mexico; during these
calls, the men used code words consistent with methamphetamine trafficking
and discussed an upcoming delivery that was consistent with Pineda Pineda’s
delivery of methamphetamine. Considering the record as a whole, we conclude
that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the preponderance of
the evidence showed that the methamphetamine in the instant case had been
imported from Mexico. See id. Accordingly, the district court did not err by
applying the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement.
AFFIRMED.
2