
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lionicio ALEGRIA, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-41708 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed January 31, 2018
    Eileen K. Wilson, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Gena Blount Bunn, Esq., Gena Bunn, P.L.L.C., Longview, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Liohicio Alegría appeals the 90-month below-guidelines sentence imposed in connection with his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens. He argues that the district court clearly erred in applying a nine-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2Ll.l(b)(2)(C) based on a finding that the offense involved 100 or more aliens. Alegría contends that the district court erroneously included as relevant conduct prior alien smuggling activity that was not part of the same course or conduct or common scheme or plan.

We reviewed the district court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Whether the district court properly determined relevant conduct is a factual finding reviewable for clear error. United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 461 (5th Cir. 2002).

The offense of conviction and the prior smuggling activity involved schemes to pick up aliens from the brush, house them at Alegria’s ranch, and transport them north. The instant conviction and the prior activity dating from 2009-2015 shared a common purpose and modus operandi and were part of a common scheme or plan. See United States v. Williams, 610 F.3d 271, 293-94 (5th Cir. 2010). Alegría has not shown that the district court clearly erred by concluding that his prior alien smuggling activity was conduct relevant to his offense of conviction.

Alegría also challenges the four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(a) for being an organizer or leader, arguing-that his role was minor. Section 3B1.1 provides for a four-level increase in the base offense level where “the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” § 3Bl.l(a). Whether a defendant is a leader for purposes of an adjustment under § 3Bl.l(a) is a finding of fact reviewed for’ clear error. United States v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560, 584 (5th Cir. 2006).

The facts contained in the PSR and the testimony presented at sentencing showed that Alegría provided services such as law enforcement scouting, hiring drivers, and using his ranch as a stash house. Wire transfers showed money was transferred to several members of Alegria’s family on his behalf. Prior employees admitted to working for Alegría as drivers. The evidence supports a finding that Alegría directed at least one other person in the' conspiracy; such a finding is sufficient to support the enhancement. See § 3B1.1, comment, (n.2); United States v. Curtis, 635 F.3d 704, 720 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in applying the organizer or leader enhancement.

The judgment of the district court is 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.
     