Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02137/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02137-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Porfirio Paz-Aguirre
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

FIL.L.,.O , 

Uniiro Stares~~ AP!=~:; Tentb C1rcu1'; · 

FEBO 5 1992 

RQBgRT L. HOECKEP. 

Clerl: 

No. 91-2137 

PORFIRIO PAZ-AGUIRRE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. CR 90-51-01 HB) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Defendant Porfirio Paz-Aguirre appeals the sentence imposed 

upon him after his guilty plea to possession with intent to 

distribute less than fifty kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 

21 u.s.c. SS 84l(a)(l) and 841(b)(l)(D). The only issue on appeal 

is whether the district court either misappl~ed u.s.s.G. S 3Bl.2 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-2137 Document: 010110221723 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 1 
or was clearly erroneous when it denied minor participant status 

to defendant, which would have entitled him to a two point 

reduction in his offense level. 

Defendant points to application note 2 under U.S.S.G. 

S 3Bl.2, which indicates that it may be appropriate to give a 

downward adjustment when "an individual was recruited as a courier 

for a single smuggling transaction involving a small amount of 

drugs." The evidence indicated that defendant and another 

individual were apprehended crossing the border with Mexico in a 

car owned by defendant. In a hidden compartment built between the 

fuel tank and the luggage area of the vehicle there were twenty 

packages containing thirty-three kilograms of marijuana. 

Defendant admitted that he knew the marijuana was there and he 

intended to deliver it to someone in California for distribution. 

Defendant's case for minor participant status is based upon his 

statement given to the probation officer that some other person in 

New Mexico constructed the secret compartment and concealed the 

marijuana, that defendant was not aware how much marijuana was 

placed in his car, "My job was only to transport the marijuana. 

That is, I was hired to drive the car containing the marijuana to 

California where the marijuana would be turned over to someone 

else for, I presume, distribution." II R. 3. 

only 

The district court rejected minor participant status, saying 

The defendant owned the car, he was driving the car. 

There is just no indication of minor participant in this 

case, in this matter. Therefore, I will not grant that. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-2137 Document: 010110221723 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 2 
The court takes judicial notice that defendant was 

an equal participant in the commission of the offense, 

which involved thirty-three kilograms of marijuana. 

Actually, if he was anything, he was more than equal. 

If anything, he was a major participant. 

I Supp. R. 9-10. 

We cannot hold that the district court either misapplied the 

guidelines or made a clearly erroneous fact finding. Our cases 

make clear that mere courier status by itself is not enough to 

earn a defendant a two point reduction as a minor participant. 

See,~, United States v. Mccann, 940 F . 2d 1352, 1359 (10th Cir. 

1991); United States v. Arredondo-Santos, 911 F.2d 424, 426 (10th 

Cir. 1990). Thirty-three kilos of marijuana is not an 

insignificant amount. Defendant was the owner of the vehicle and 

surely the secret compartment was either built into the vehicle or 

filled with marijuana with his knowledge. There is simply no 

evidence of other persons being significantly more culpable than 

defendant in this smuggling operation. 

AFFIRMED . The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-2137 Document: 010110221723 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 3