
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcos Antonio MARTINEZ-URIOTE, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-11003 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed March 30, 2017
    Stephen P. Fahey, Esq., James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S, Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Brandon Elliott Beck, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Marcos Antonio Martinez-Uriote was sentenced to a within-guidelines term of imprisonment following his plea of guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting. Martinez-Uriote now appeals, contending that the district court erred by finding that the offense “involved the importation of amphetamine or methamphetamine” for the purposes of applying a two-level enhancement to his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) because there was insufficient evidence that he possessed imported methamphetamine. We review the district court’s factual determination that Martinez-Uriote’s offense involved the importation of methamphetamine for clear error. See United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 550, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2012).

“[Distribution (or possession with intent to distribute) of imported methamphetamine, even without more, may subject a defendant to the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement.” United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2014). Considering the record as a whole, the district court plausibly inferred that the methamphetamine Martinez-Uriote possessed with intent to distribute had been imported from Mexico. See Serfass, 684 F.3d at 550; see also United States v. Castillo-Curiel, 579 Fed.Appx. 239, 239 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by applying the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement. See Foulks, 747 F.3d at 915.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     