Case ID: f-appx_321/html/0417-01.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. Bobby ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-40705
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 17, 2009.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Bobby Rogers pleaded guilty to one count of importing approximately 15 kilograms of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court sentenced Rogers to 235 months of imprisonment. Rogers now appeals his sentence. Rogers argues that the district court erred in denying him a two-level reduction in his offense level for his minor role in the offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b).

Rogers’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 denied the reduction because of the amount of drugs, preparation, and planning involved in the offense and because there was no evidence that anyone else participated in the transaction. The district court’s determination concerning Rogers’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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.