Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50943/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50943-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
McLloyd Onuohah
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50943

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MCLLOYD ONUOHAH,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-2009-ALL-DB

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

McLloyd Onuohah (Onuohah) appeals his sentence for one count 

of wire fraud and two counts of mail fraud, violations of 18

U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1341. Onuohah argues that the district court

misapplied the United States Sentencing Guidelines and 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

 Case: 03-50943 Document: 0051632589 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2004
No. 03-50943

-2-

U.S.S.G. § 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 U.S.S.G. 

§ 3B1.2, comment. (n.5). As Onuohah was directly involved in

finding suppliers for the fraudulent checks and directly involved

in delivering the checks to the person who was to negotiate them,

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

Onuohah’s offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See United

States v. Deavours, 219 F.3d 400, 404 (5th Cir. 2000). 

AFFIRMED.

 

 Case: 03-50943 Document: 0051632589 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2004