United States v. Ortiz

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 7, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-50292
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERTA WANDA ORTIZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:04-CR-618-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roberta Wanda Ortiz appeals her guilty plea conviction and
sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
marijuana and for the underlying possession offense. Ortiz
contends that her sentence violated the Sixth Amendment under
Unites States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because it was not
based on facts admitted by her or found by a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Booker solved the Sixth Amendment problem of
judicial factfinding by making the Guidelines advisory. See United

-- 1 of 2 --

2
States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 793, 797 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 2884 (2006). This argument lacks merit.
Alternatively, Ortiz contends that the Government did not
prove the drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence because
the estimation of drug quantity in the presentence report was based
on speculation and lacked an adequate evidentiary basis. The
district court did not clearly err by extrapolating the relevant
drug quantity from payments Ortiz admitted receiving for prior
smuggling trips. See United States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163, 172
(5th Cir. 2002).
Ortiz argues that her sentence was unreasonable. The district
court properly calculated the guideline range, and Ortiz “has
failed to demonstrate that [her] properly calculated Guidelines
sentence, which was at the lowest end of the range, was
unreasonable.” See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55
(5th Cir. 2006).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --