United States v. Rodriguez-Tamez, 90 F. App'x 74 (5th Cir. 2004). · Go Syfert
United States v. Rodriguez-Tamez, 90 F. App'x 74 (5th Cir. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Omar RODRIGUEZ-TAMEZ, Defendant-Appellant
03-40445.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 18, 2004.
Unpublished opinion
90 F. App'x 74
Mitchel Neurock, US Attorney’s Office, Laredo, TX, James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Richard Javier Gonzalez, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Smith, Demoss, Stewart.
Unpublished
PER CURIAM. *

Omar Rodriguez-Tamez appeals his sentence for his guilty-plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. Rodriguez-Tamez argues that the district court clearly erred in imposing a two-level offense-level enhancement based on his role as a manager or supervisor in the offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1(c).

The record does not contain sufficient reliable evidence to support the district[*75] court’s finding that Rodriguez-Tamez organized, led, managed, or supervised at least one other person who was criminally culpable in, though not necessarily convicted for, the offense. See United States v. Jobe, 101 F.3d 1046, 1068 (5th Cir.1996); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment, (ns.1-2). Accordingly, Rodriguez-Tamez’s sentence is VACATED and this case is REMANDED for resentencing as to this issue, without prejudice to the possibility that an upward departure might be warranted for Rodriguez-Tamez’s management responsibility of the property, assets or activities of the conspiracy. See Jobe, 101 F.3d at 1068 & n. 30; U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment, (n.2).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.