Case ID: f-appx_227/html/0348-01.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. Jose Angel GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-41653
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 17, 2007.
    
      James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Guillermo Ruben Garcia, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Angel Gonzalez appeals his 135-month sentence following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine. He avers that the district court erred by denying him a minor-role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), this court reviews the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and reviews factual findings for clear error. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 268, 163 L.Ed.2d 241 (2005); United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). Although Gonzalez asserts that he merely held the cocaine for a short period of time and contacted the eventual courier, the record reveals that Gonzalez recruited the courier, directed the movements of the courier, and was responsible for paying the courier. Moreover, the large amount of cocaine involved mitigates against granting the adjustment. United States v. Rojas, 868 F.2d 1409, 1410 (5th Cir.1989) (defendant entitled to neither minimal nor minor participant status based on significant quantity of cocaine defendant possessed). Based on these facts, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying a minor-role adjustment.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.