Case: 22-40825 Document: 00517039548 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2024
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-40825
FILED
January 22, 2024
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Amos Sifuentes,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:22-CR-231-1
______________________________
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Amos Sifuentes appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following his
guilty plea conviction for the smuggling of goods from the United States to
Mexico. He argues the district court erred in applying a base offense level of
26 under U.S.S.G. § 2M5.2(a)(1) based on its finding that the offense did not
involve “only (A) non-fully automatic small arms (rifles, handguns, or
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40825 Document: 00517039548 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2024
No. 22-40825
shotguns), and the number of weapons did not exceed two, (B) ammunition
for non-fully automatic small arms, and the number of rounds did not exceed
500, or (C) both.” § 2M5.2(a)(2). Because he raised this argument in the
district court, we review the district court’s application of the Guidelines
de novo and its fact findings for clear error. United States v. Gomez-Alvarez,
781 F.3d 787, 791 (5th Cir. 2015). “There is no clear error where the district
court’s finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United States v.
Rico, 864 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 2017).
The offense involved one 9-millimeter Glock pistol, 100 rounds of 9-
millimeter ammunition, and four magazines, which were component parts
that were prohibited items under 18 U.S.C. § 554, the export law at issue
here. See United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 537–39 (5th Cir. 2015)
(holding that empty magazines for firearms meet the definition of “firearm
components” under the statute). Because the offense involved a firearm,
ammunition, and three additional component parts, the district court did not
clearly err in finding that the offense did not fall within § 2M5.2(a)(2). See
Gonzalez, 792 F.3d at 537-39; see also United States v. Diaz-Gomez, 680 F.3d
477, 479–81 (5th Cir. 2012). Therefore, the district court did not err in
applying a base offense level of 26 under § 2M5.2(a)(1).
Sifuentes also filed motions to stay and to remand the case to the
district court, challenging the validity of the amended indictment. In his
reply brief, Sifuentes concedes that he waived this issue by entering an
unconditional guilty plea. Accordingly, Sifuentes’s motions are DENIED
as moot.
AFFIRMED.
2