Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40931/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40931-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Luis Aguilar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40931

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN LUIS AGUILAR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-5-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Luis Aguilar pleaded guilty to possessing 2.6 kilograms of 

methamphetamine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to serve 92 

months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release. Now, Aguilar 

challenges the district court’s rejection of his argument that he was a minimal 

or minor participant in the offense and deserved a corresponding adjustment. 

He insists that the adjustment was warranted because he was a mere courier, 

 

* 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

May 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40931 Document: 00513517869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2016
No. 15-40931

2

took direction from others, and earned only a small sum. The district court’s 

decision that this adjustment was inapplicable is entitled to deference, and we 

review this decision for clear error. See United States v. Devine, 934 F.2d 1325, 

1340 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir. 

2005).

Insofar as Aguilar avers that he should be considered a minor or minimal 

participant because he only transported drugs, he is mistaken. See United

States v. Jenkins, 487 F.3d 279, 282 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. MartinezLarraga, 517 F.3d 258, 272 (5th Cir. 2008). Insofar as Aguilar contends that 

he should have received the § 3B1.2 adjustment because his behavior 

warranted it, this argument also fails. Because his sentence was based wholly 

on his own acts, the adjustment was not required. See United States v. Garcia, 

242 F.3d 593, 598-99 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Perez-Solis, 709 F.3d 453, 

471 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Likewise unavailing is Aguilar’s argument that the district court plainly 

erred because it denied the requested adjustment based on its belief that a 

drug courier can never be a minor or minimal participant, rather than on an 

analysis of the facts underlying this case. Review of the record shows that the 

judge gave a detailed recitation of the facts of Aguilar’s case and an equally 

detailed explanation of the reasons why these facts did not warrant the 

requested adjustment. This review thus undermines Aguilar’s contention that 

the district court automatically denies this adjustment to couriers. 

Accordingly, there is no clear or obvious error. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-40931 Document: 00513517869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2016