UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan Leelind HENSLEY, Also Known as GG, Defendant-Appellant, 612 F. App'x 239

PER CURIAM: Jonathan Hensley appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. For the first time on appeal, Hensley claims that the district court plainly erred by applying a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3Bl.l(

c) for his being an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of the criminal activity. He asserts that the facts set forth in the presentence report showed that he managed only the property, assets, or activities of the criminal activity but not any of the participants. He contends that the enhancement is applicable only where a defendant exerts control over other participants. Because Hensley did not raise that issue in the district court, we review it for plain error only. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

To establish plain error, Hensley must show a forfeited .error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See id. If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but should do so only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. The government has moved for

summary affirmance on the ground that the sole issue raised by Hensley is foreclosed. A two-level enhancement under § 3B 1.1(

c) is appropriate where the defendant exercised control over either another participant in the criminal activity or the property, assets, or activities of the criminal activity. United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 345 (5th Cir.2012) (en banc); see also United States v. Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d 278, 282-83 (5th Cir.2015). Accordingly, as Hensley concedes, his argument is foreclosed. See Delgado, 672 F.3d at 345. The motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED. The government’s alternative motion to extend the time to file its brief is DENIED as unnecessary. 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.