Case ID: f-appx_314/html/0738-02.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. Christopher VEGA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50648
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 18, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant Appellant.
    
      Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Christopher Vega pleaded guilty to one count of importing 50 kilograms or more of marijuana and one count of possessing with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952, 960. The district court sentenced Vega to two concurrent terms of 30 months of imprisonment. Vega now appeals his sentence. He argues that the district court erred by denying him a two-level adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2(b) (2007) based upon his status as a minor participant in the offense.

Vega’s argument that he qualified for the minor participant adjustment because he was a mere courier of drugs is unavailing. See United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 434 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456, 1485 (5th Cir.1993). Rather, such a role is “an indispensable part” of drug related offenses. See United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.1989). The district court determined that Vega’s role was essential to the offense and also observed that Vega provided law enforcement officials inconsistent statements. The district court thus rejected Vega’s assertion regarding his offense role in light of the totality of the circumstances presented by Vega’s case. The district court’s determination concerning Vega’s role in the offense is plausible in light of the record and thus is not clearly erroneous. See § 3B1.2 comment. (n.3(C)); United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203-04 (5th Cir.2005).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.