USA v. Ismael Esparza, No. 16-41476 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-41476 Document: 00514017035 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-41476 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 2, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ISMAEL ESPARZA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15-CR-1184-1 Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ismael Esparza appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to transport unlawful aliens within the United States. He renews his preserved challenge to the district court’s application of a twolevel adjustment to his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) for his role as “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” in the offense. “Whether a defendant exercised an aggravating role as an organizer, leader, manager, or 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 16-41476 Document: 00514017035 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2017 No. 16-41476 supervisor . . . is a finding of fact reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d 260, 265 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the entire record.” United States v. Perez, 217 F.3d 323, 331 (5th Cir. 2000). The presentence investigation report (PSR), which Esparza failed to rebut, establishes that he was identified as the leader of the alien-smuggling organization by Jose Maria Lozano, a co-conspirator. The PSR recited details corroborative of Esparza’s management or supervision of Lozano, including directing Lozano to take responsibility for a fatal car accident and to conceal Esparza’s involvement. We are not persuaded by Esparza’s contention that the facts in the PSR were too conclusory to support the offense-level adjustment or that the district court’s finding was implausible in light of the entire record. Perez, 217 F.3d at 331. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by applying the § 3B1.1(c) adjustment. See Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d at 265. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
