
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abiel Omar MARTINEZ-RANGEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-40439
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 12, 2012.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Abiel Omar Martinez-Rangel was convicted of one count of possessing more than 50 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute, and the district court sentenced him to serve a 63-month prison term and a three-year term of supervised release. In the sole issue raised in this direct appeal, Martinez-Ran-gel challenges his sentence as being inappropriately imposed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), which provides a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for offenses involving between 50 and 99 kilograms of marijuana, rather than § 841(b)(1)(D), which provides a maximum sentence of five years for offenses involving less than 50 kilograms of marijuana.

Because this argument was not presented to the district court, it is reviewed for plain error only. See United States v. Mondragoi'o-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.2009). Martinez-Rangel has not met this standard. The jury, pursuant to the instructions provided at trial, found that Martinez-Rangel’s offense involved more than 50 kilograms of marijuana. Consequently, the district court did not err by sentencing him under § 841(b)(1)(C). See United States v. Jackson, 596 F.3d 236, 244 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2126, 176 L.Ed.2d 748 (2010). Insofar as Martinez-Rangel argues evidentiary sufficiency, or lack thereof, in his reply brief, we decline to consider this claim because it was not raised in his opening brief. See United States v. Jimenez, 509 F.3d 682, 693 n. 10 (5th Cir.2007).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     