Case ID: f-appx_547/html/0540-01.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. Jesus CONTRERAS-CANO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50155
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 19, 2013.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jesus Contreras-Cano pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to importation and possession with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 952, and he was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Contreras-Cano argues that the district court should have granted him the minor participant adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) because he was less culpable than the other participants in the offense. He contends that he was a mere courier hired to drive a truck that others loaded to a place others told him to go.

Contreras-Cano pleaded guilty to importation and possession with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana. Although his role may have been less culpable than others in the broader conspiracy, his role in actually bringing the marijuana across the border was integral to his offenses. As the district court noted, Contreras-Cano was paid to carry loads of marijuana across the border six times, and was paid even more to transport the marijuana deep into the interior of the United States. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Contreras-Cano was not entitled to a minor participant adjustment. See United States v. Silva-De Hoyos, 702 F.3d 843, 847 (5th Cir.2012).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.