United States v. Beltran

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 16, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-51397
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODOLFO BELTRAN, ALSO KNOWN AS RUDY, ALSO
KNOWN AS CHANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(MO-00-CR-46-4)
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Rodolfo (“Rudy”) Beltran appeals his
guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. He
argues that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v.
Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), the sentence enhancements he
was assessed for obstruction of justice and having an aggravating
role were unconstitutional.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Beltran’s argument is foreclosed by this court’s opinion in
United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 473 (5th Cir. 2004),
petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004)(No. 04-5263), in
which we held that Blakely does not apply to the federal sentencing
guidelines.
Beltran alternatively contests his sentence, arguing that the
district court erred by enhancing his sentence based on his having
an aggravating role in the offense. We review the district court’s
factual determination that Beltran played an aggravating role for
clear error. See United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 724 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1017 (2003). The uncontroverted
information provided in the PSR and the testimony adduced at the
sentencing hearing confirm that the district court did not clearly
err in assessing Beltran an aggravating role in the offense. See
id. at 724-25. Given this conclusion, we further hold that there
was no error, plain or otherwise, in Beltran’s not receiving the
minor-role adjustment. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(A));
United States v. Guerrero, 5 F.3d 868, 870 (5th Cir. 1993).
Beltran also contends that the district court erred in
assessing him a two-level adjustment for obstruction of justice.
We review the district court’s factual finding of obstruction of
justice under the clear-error standard. See United States v.
Odiodio, 244 F.3d 398, 404 (5th Cir. 2001). Beltran’s own
testimony at the sentencing hearing established that he remained in
Mexico to avoid judicial process in this country. The district

-- 2 of 3 --

3
court did not clearly err in determining that the adjustment for
obstruction of justice assessment was warranted. See U.S.S.G.
§ 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(e)); Odiodio, 244 F.3d at 404.
Finally, Beltran argues that the district court erred by
concluding that he was not eligible for application of the safety-
valve provision of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. As Beltran was an
organizer/leader in the offense, he did not meet the requirements
for application of the safety valve. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a).
Beltran’s conviction and sentence are, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --