United States v. Miguel Bonilla, 670 F. App'x 875

Bonilla was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and appealed his sentence.
At sentencing the district court attributed a substantial methamphetamine quantity to Bonilla based largely on statements by Erica Ayala, a participant in transactions with him.
The presentence report and testimony from Bonilla’s girlfriend/co‑defendant Kelly James and an investigating officer corroborated aspects of Ayala’s account.
The district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) to calculate drug quantity and two enhancements under § 2D1.1(b): (1) possession of a dangerous weapon and (2) making a credible threat of violence.
Bonilla argued the factual findings were clearly erroneous because they relied on unreliable, uncorroborated hearsay from Ayala and that admitting such out‑of‑court statements without live testimony violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and affirmed the district court’s drug‑quantity determination and the two weapon/threat enhancements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Drug‑quantity attribution under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)	Ayala's statements were unreliable and uncorroborated; district court erred in relying on them	Presentence report, James’s statements, and officer testimony support quantity finding	Affirmed; quantity determination plausible given record as a whole
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) weapon enhancement	Court erred relying on Ayala’s hearsay that Bonilla carried a handgun	Corroboration: James’s statement that Bonilla sold a firearm to a co‑conspirator; other record evidence	Affirmed; possession of a dangerous weapon finding not clearly erroneous
§ 2D1.1(b)(2) threat enhancement	Ayala’s out‑of‑court account of a shotgun threat was unreliable	Ayala’s account was plausible and consistent with other testimony; district court may credit it	Affirmed; credible threat finding not clearly erroneous
Confrontation/Due Process challenge	Admitting out‑of‑court declarants without live testimony violated Sixth and Fifth Amendments	Circuit precedent allows sentencing reliance on hearsay; no confrontation violation at sentencing	Foreclosed by circuit precedent; claim fails

United States v. Rodriguez-Guerrero, 805 F.3d 192 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for sentencing factual findings)
United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240 (5th Cir.) (clear‑error standard and plausibility of findings)
United States v. Alford, 142 F.3d 825 (5th Cir.) (reliability of evidence for drug‑quantity determinations)
United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226 (5th Cir.) (defendant’s burden to rebut presentence report information)
United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252 (5th Cir.) (permissibility of extrapolating drug estimates from reliable information including uncorroborated hearsay)
United States v. Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545 (5th Cir.) (support for reliance on hearsay in sentencing)
United States v. Sotelo, 97 F.3d 782 (5th Cir.) (credibility determinations lie with the factfinder at sentencing)
United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102 (5th Cir.) (Confrontation Clause challenge at sentencing is foreclosed by circuit precedent)