United States v. Leal ( 1998 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40638
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALDO LEAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-97-CR-265-1
- - - - - - - - - -
December 1, 1998
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Aldo Leal, whose true name is Eliseo Cruz Godinez, appeals
his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for possession
with intent to distribute marijuana. We have reviewed the
record, the presentence report, and the briefs of the parties and
AFFIRM the sentence imposed by the district court.
The Government’s motion seeking this court to compel Leal to
supplement the record with the transcript of his rearraignment
hearing is DENIED as UNNECESSARY. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(3).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-40638
-2-
Leal does not rely on any admissions at rearraignment to support
his arguments, nor did he do so in the district court.
Leal argues that the district court clearly erred in failing
to decrease his offense level for his minor or minimal role in
the offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Leal has failed to sustain
his burden of demonstrating that he was entitled to a mitigating-
role reduction. See United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1261
(5th Cir. 1994). He has not shown that there are other
participants who were more culpable than he or that he was less
culpable than the average drug transporter. See § 3B1.2,
comment. (nn.1-3); United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138
(5th Cir. 1989).
Leal argues that the district court erred in finding that he
obstructed justice and in applying U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 because his
use of an alias did not significantly impede the investigation of
the instant offense. Leal concedes that he provided false
information to the magistrate judge during arraignment and to the
district court judge when he entered his guilty plea. This
conduct was sufficient to support the enhancement under § 3C1.1,
comment. (n.3(f)). “[T]he use of a false name before a judge or
magistrate merits enhancement without a showing of significant
hindrance” of the investigation or prosecution. United States v.
McDonald, 964 F.2d 390, 392-93 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v.
Montano-Silva, 15 F.3d 52, 53 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.