Case ID: f-appx_231/html/0371-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      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. Rafael SOTO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-51046
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 19, 2007.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas Fritz Hille, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rafael Soto-Martinez appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. He argues that the district court clearly erred in denying him a minimal or minor role adjustment to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Soto-Martinez contends that he was a mere courier who was substantially less culpable than other participants in the offense.

We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and review factual findings for clear error. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir.2005). Pursuant to § 3B1.2, a district court may decrease a defendant’s offense level by four levels if the defendant was a minimal participant in the criminal activity or by two levels if the defendant was a minor participant.

As Soto-Martinez’s role in the offense was not minimal or minor, the district court did not clearly err in denying him a role adjustment under § 3B1.2. See United States v. Atando, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Nevarez-Arreola, 885 F.2d 243, 245 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 137-38 (5th Cir.1989). The district court’s judgment 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.