Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Jose Luis Garcia, also known as Joe Garcia

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 5, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50188
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
JOSE LUIS GARCIA, also known as Joe Garcia
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-98-CR-586-ALL-DB
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Luis Garcia appeals from his conviction and sentence
for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 21 U.S.C. § 846. The indictment
did not include an allegation of drug quantity, and the jury did
not make a finding on that issue. For a variety of reasons,
Garcia argues that the district court erred in attributing
4,354.56 kilograms of marijuana to him for purposes of
sentencing.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-50188
-2-
Because Garcia’s sentence exceeded the default provision of
20 years under § 841(b)(1)(C), this court assesses the evidence
of drug quantity to determine if it is “overwhelming” and
“essentially uncontroverted” that Garcia was responsible for at
least 100 kilograms of marijuana to justify his enhanced sentence
of nearly 27 years of imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(B)(vii); United States v. Baptiste, 309 F.3d 274, 276
(5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1621 (2003); United
States v. Randle, 304 F.3d 373, 377 (5th Cir. 2002), cert.
denied, 123 S. Ct. 1748 (2003).
The parties stipulated that law enforcement agents seized
approximately 200 kilograms of marijuana from a storage facility
that was leased by Garcia. The stipulation more than adequately
supports Garcia’s enhanced sentence. Furthermore, the testimony
of Garcia’s co-conspirators constitutes overwhelming evidence
that he conspired to possess with intent to distribute at least
100 kilograms of marijuana. See Baptiste, 309 F.3d at 278.
Therefore, any error by the district court in violation of
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not seriously
affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631
(2002).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --