United States v. Lopez ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-50717
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROMAN GONZALEZ LOPEZ, also known as R.G. Lopez,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-92-CR-215
- - - - - - - - - -
April 19, 1996
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
R.G. Lopez appeals his sentence following remand for
conspiracy to distribute heroin and distribution of heroin.
Lopez contends that the district court erred by attributing 283.5
grams of heroin to him; increasing his offense level upward for
his role as a manager supervisor; increasing his offense level
upward for obstruction of justice; increasing his offense level
upward for abuse of a position of trust; and attributing to him
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-50717
-2-
an amount of heroin he negotiated to sell but was incapable of producing.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties
and we find no reversible error. Regarding the
manager/supervisor adjustment, we affirm for essentially the
reasons relied upon by the district court.
Regarding the attribution of 283.5 grams of heroin to Lopez,
the district court's finding that Lopez received $12,000 from a
coconspirator in October 1992 is clearly erroneous in light of
our previous opinion in Lopez's case. However, evidence supports
finding that Lopez did receive the money in November 1992 and
reasonably could have foreseen that the money was drug-
trafficking proceeds. United States v. Maseratti, 1 F.3d 330,
340 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1096, and cert.
denied, 114 S. Ct. 1552, and cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 282 (1994).
The district court's attribution of 283.5 grams of heroin was not
clearly erroneous.
Regarding Lopez's remaining contentions, the district court
rejected Lopez's objections to the presentence report in part
because Lopez filed those objections untimely, on the day before
sentencing. Lopez has failed to brief whether the district court
erred by rejecting his objections as untimely. Consequently, he
has failed to brief the proper issue for appeal. Brinkmann v.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987). We therefore do not consider Lopez's remaining
contentions on their merits.
AFFIRMED.