U.S. v. Lopez

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Armenta LOPEZ, aka…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 13, 2001

21 F. App'x 769 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

21 Fed.Appx. 769 (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Armenta LOPEZ, aka Jose Luis Bueno Zazueta; aka Jose Lopez Armenta, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-30361. D.C. No. CR-00-00218-HA. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. November 13, 2001

Submitted November 5, 2001 ^*.

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Ancer L. Haggerty, J., of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals held that determination that drugs found in apartment were attributable to defendant for sentencing purposes was supported by evidence.

Affirmed. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KLEINFELD, McKEOWN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Jose Armenta Lopez appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Lopez raises the sole issue of whether the district court erred in attributing to him for sentencing purposes a quantity of drugs found in an apartment frequented by Lopez. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

Under the guidelines, the base offense level is determined by the quantity of drugs involved in a defendant's relevant conduct, which includes not only the drug quantity in the offense of conviction, but all of the additional drugs the sentencing judge finds defendant possessed. See U.S. S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A); United States v. Scheele, 231 F.3d 492, 497 (9th Cir.2000). The district court's finding that Lopez possessed the drugs in the apartment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Presentence Report provided evidence that Lopez consented to the search of the apartment, paid the apartment's rent and possessed keys to the apartment, exercised free access to the apartment, and brought the air compressor and false bottom can, which concealed the cocaine, into the apartment.

AFFIRMED