Case ID: f-appx_169/html/0924-02.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. Jaime LOYA-BONILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-51062.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided March 13, 2006.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jaime Loya-Bonilla appeals his sentence for one count of aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. Loya-Bonilla argues that the district court clearly erred in denying him a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

Section 3B1.2 provides for a two-point reduction in the offense level if the defendant was a minor participant. See § 3B1.2. A “minor participant” is defined as one who is substantially “less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” See § 3B1.2, comment, (n.5). As Loya-Bonilla was responsible for recruiting the supplier of the marijuana and transporting it into the United States, his role in the offense cannot be said to have been “peripheral to the advancement of the illicit activity.” See United States v. Thomas, 932 F.2d 1085, 1092 (5th Cir.1991). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in refusing to adjust Loya-Bonilla’s offense level under § 3B1.2. See 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).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.