The opinion
Case: 18-10567 Document: 00514808211 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/24/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 18-10567 Fifth Circuit
Summary Calendar FILED
January 24, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ARIEL BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CR-6-2
Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Ariel Brown pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine and was sentenced below the guidelines range to 50 months
of imprisonment. She now appeals, asserting that the district court erred in
(1) applying a two-level U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement based on the
possession of a dangerous weapon and (2) failing to correct a false statement
in her presentence report (PSR). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 18-10567 Document: 00514808211 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/24/2019
No. 18-10567
First, reviewing the district court’s application of the § 2D1.1(b)(1)
enhancement for clear error, we find none. United States v. King, 773 F.3d 48,
52 (5th Cir. 2014). The district court’s application of the enhancement is
plausible in light of the record as a whole, which includes evidence that Brown
(1) resided with co-conspirators who stored drugs, drug proceeds, and firearms
in a safe and (2) helped one of those co-conspirators hide an AR-15 type rifle
from law enforcement. See id.; United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d
751, 764-65 (5th Cir. 2008). Brown’s arguments to the contrary based on the
type of guns involved and her professed lack of actual knowledge fail to
demonstrate clear error.
Second, we are also unpersuaded by Brown’s argument, unsupported by
citation to relevant authority, that the district court erred in failing to delete a
portion of her PSR that it discredited and did not consider in imposing the
sentence. Cf. United States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez, 840 F.3d 240, 248 n.6 (5th
Cir. 2016). Because her initial brief did not adequately raise her argument
that the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
32(i)(3)(C), see Macklin v. City of New Orleans, 293 F.3d 237, 241 n.2 (5th Cir.
2002), we decline to consider that argument, see United States v. Davis, 602
F.3d 643, 648 n.7 (5th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
2