Case ID: f-appx_111/html/0761-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosa Maigualida MARANA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-20156.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Nov. 3, 2004.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Richard Berry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roland E Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Raquel Kathy Wilson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rosa Maigualida Maraña appeals her guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroine and importation of heroin. Maraña argues that the district court clearly erred in refusing to grant her request for a two-level “minor role” reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). She argues that the evidence showed that she was merely a cornier and that a “recruiter” was responsible for her conduct.

The district court’s refusal to grant Marana a two-level reduction for being a minor participant was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Virgen-Moreno, 265 F.3d 276, 296 (5th Cir.2001). The large quantity of heroin that Maraña was transporting strongly supports the denial of a reduction for being a minor participant. See United States v. Rojas, 868 F.2d 1409, 1409-10 (5th Cir.1989). Furthermore, the district court was not required to accept Marana’s account of her role in the drug trafficking scheme. See United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.1989). Lastly, this court has held that “couriers are an indispensable part of drug dealing networks.” Id.

For the first time on appeal, Maraña maintains that the sentencing schemes of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). As Maraña concedes, her argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir.2000). She raises the issue only to preserve it for possible further review.

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.