Case ID: f-appx_572/html/0768-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandra VEGA-DELGADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10408
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    July 17, 2014.
    Yvette Rhodes, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, James C. Preston, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Victor Daniel Martinez, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HULL, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alejandra Vega-Delgado appeals her sentence of 46 months of imprisonment, following her pleas of guilty to conspiring to possess and to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C); 846. Vega-Delgado argues that she was entitled to a reduction in her base offense level for her minor role in the offense. We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err by denying Vega-Delgado’s request for a reduction for her minor role. A defendant is eligible for a two-level reduction in her base offense level if she “was a minor participant,” United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § SB 1.2(b) (Nov.2013), whose “part in committing the offense ... ma[de] [her] substantially less culpable than the average participant,” id. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A). To warrant a reduction, the defendant’s role in the offense must be minor in comparison to her relevant conduct and in comparison to other participants in the offense. United States v. Alvarez-Coria, 447 F.3d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir.2006). Based on the information in Vega-Delgado’s presentence investigation report, to which she did not object, see United States v. Turner, 626 F.3d 566, 572 (11th Cir.2010), her relevant conduct is identical to her actual conduct, which consisted of transporting 2.73 kilograms of cocaine from Texas to Florida; calling a confidential source to obtain a buyer; scheduling the transaction; and transferring the cocaine from the confidential source’s residence to the trunk of a vehicle used to transport the cocaine to the buyer. And Vega-Delgado’s conduct is not “substantially less” than that of her codefen-dant, who negotiated the price and delivered the cocaine to the buyer. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A).

We AFFIRM Vega-Delgado’s sentence.