United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 18, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20221
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
MOHAMMED KAZAM MARTINEZ
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-523-1
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mohammed Kazam Martinez appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting the
possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He argues that the
district court erred in calculating the cocaine quantity
attributable to him pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. Martinez did
not present any rebuttal evidence at the sentencing hearing to
establish that the drug quantity in the Presentence Report (PSR)
was inaccurate. The facts set forth in the PSR have an adequate
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-20221
-2-
evidentiary basis as they were corroborated by the testimony of
Officer Nelius at the sentencing hearing and by the officers’
investigation of the Ramirezes and seizure of cocaine and large
amounts of cash. Therefore, the district court did not clearly
err in determining that Martinez was responsible for 194
kilograms of cocaine. See United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d
287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Ocana, 204
F.3d 585, 591 (5th Cir. 2000).
Martinez argues that the district court erred in determining
that he was a leader in the offense and increasing his offense
level by four levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Because
Martinez did not present any rebuttal evidence, the district
court did not clearly err in determining that Martinez was a
leader or organizer in the offense, based on the PSR and the
evidence presented at the sentencing hearing showing that
Martinez was involved in a conspiracy involving five persons, he
directed the actions of some of these persons, and he was solely
responsible for determining where, to whom, how, and under what
terms the cocaine was distributed. See United States v.
Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 204 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126
S. Ct. 268 (2005).
Martinez argues that the sentence imposed by the district
court was unreasonable and that the district court did not
consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the drug
quantity alleged in the indictment, or his cooperation with
No. 06-20221
-3-
authorities. The district court gave the following reasons for
the sentence: the nature of the offense involving a large amount
of cocaine, a large amount of drug-related cash, and firearms
(§ 3553(a)(1)); Martinez’s extensive involvement in the offense,
his history of no employment, his acceptance of responsibility,
and his cooperation with the Government (§ 3553(a)(1)); the need
for punishment and deterrence (§ 3553(a)(2)(A) & (B)); and the
statutory sentence range and the guideline sentencing range
(§ 3553(a)(3) & (4)). Martinez has not shown that the district
court misapplied the Guidelines, failed to consider the § 3553(a)
factors, failed to give reasons for the sentence, or considered
improper factors in imposing the sentence. Therefore, Martinez
has not shown that the sentence imposed by the district court was
unreasonable. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-20
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005).
Martinez also argues that language in United States v.
Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2005), violates United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). He concedes that we are bound by
our precedent and raises the issue to preserve further review.
We have not, however, relied on Alonzo and its rebuttable
presumption of reasonableness in deciding this appeal.
AFFIRMED.