UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS RENTERIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. David A. Faber,
Senior District Judge. (7:12-cr-00037-FA-10)
Submitted: December 12, 2016 Decided: December 16, 2016
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jenna T. Blue, BLUE LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-
Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L.
Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Renteria pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and
to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012). The district court
applied the cross-reference for first degree murder, U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2D1.1(d)(1), 2A1.1 (2014), and
sentenced Renteria to life in prison. Renteria appeals,
claiming that the district court erred when it applied the
cross-reference. We affirm.
When evaluating Guidelines calculations, we review the
district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual
findings for clear error. United States v. Cox, 744 F.3d 305,
308 (4th Cir. 2014). The Guidelines provide, “[i]f a victim was
killed under circumstances that would constitute murder under 18
U.S.C. § 1111 had such killing taken place within the
territorial or maritime jurisdiction of the United States, [a
sentencing court should] apply § 2A1.1 (First Degree Murder). .
. .” USSG § 2D1.1(d)(1). First degree murder includes both
premeditated and felony murder. USSG § 2A1.1, cmt. n.2. The
Government must prove the facts supporting application of a
cross-reference by a preponderance of the evidence. United
States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2012).
When attributing the actions of co-conspirators for
sentencing purposes, the Guidelines provide for consideration,
2
“in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity . . . ,
[of] all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in
furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, that
occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction [or]
in preparation for that offense.” USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). “In
order to determine the defendant’s accountability for the
conduct of others under subsection (a)(1)(B), the court must
first determine the scope of the criminal activity the
particular defendant agreed to jointly undertake.” Id. cmt.
(n.2).
We hold that the district court did not err in applying the
cross-reference. Evidence presented to the court disclosed that
Renteria was angry that Geniro Jamis had stolen $150,000 in drug
proceeds from him and that Renteria paid co-conspirators $15,000
to kidnap, torture, and murder Jamis.
We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3