# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit**  No. 21 - 50030 Summary Calendar **United States of America,** Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Angel De Jesus Garcia -**  **Limon,** Defendant
— Appellant **.** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 5:20 - CR - 124 - 2 Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** * Angel Garcia - Limon appeals his concurrent sentences for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance contain ing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and conspiracy to do the same . He raises arguments pertaining to th e denial of a mitigating - role adjustment

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opin ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 14, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50030 Document: 00516280386 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2022No. 21 - 50030

2 per U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 . First, Garcia - Limon posit s that the district court incorrectly inter preted § 3B1.2 because it did not clearly compare his relative culpability to that of the other actors in the criminal activity. Although he object ed to the lack of a mitigating - role adjustment, Garcia - Limon did not preserve this argu ment on appeal. See United States v. Pike , 979 F.3d 364, 365 – 66 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 1278 (2021). According ly, review is for plain error. See id. ; United States v. Benitez , 809 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2015) ; see also Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). I nsofar as the di strict court did not sufficiently articulate its finding regarding the avera ge partici pant in the criminal activity or its other reason ing, a court must articulate such points only whe re a defendant has requested that it do so. See Pike , 979 F.3d at 365 – 66. Garcia - Limon did not make such a request , so he has not shown any error , plain or otherwise . See id. More over, the record does not support his contention that the district court incor rectly interpreted § 3B1.2 to mean that a mitigating - role adjustment is not applicable to a defendant who is involved in any crim inal activity at all. The court’s statements that Garcia cites for this theory were not a direct reflec tion of the court’s understanding of the scope of § 3B1.2 but were instead a portion of its mitigating - role analysis. See § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(C)(i)). Next, Garcia - Limon maintains that the district court clearly erred by failing to award him a mitigating - role adjustment . “Whether a defendant was a minor or minimal participant is a factual determination that we review for clear error.” United States v. Castro, 843 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir. 2016) (inter nal quotation marks , brackets, and citation omitted). The commentary to § 3B1.2 lists several non - exhaustive factors that a court may consider when determining whether to apply the adjustment. See Unite d States v. Gomez Valle , 828 F.3d 324, 329 (5th Cir. 2016) ; § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(C)(i) - (v)). Case: 21-50030 Document: 00516280386 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2022No. 21 - 50030

3 W here some factors support a mitigating - role adjustment but others do not, the district court does not clearly err in denying it . See United States v. Bello Sanchez , 872 F.3d 260, 264 – 65 (5th Cir. 2017). Here, applied to the facts, the factors weigh both in favor of and against a mitigating - role adjustment. See § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(C)(i) - (v)). The record includes facts demonstrating that Garcia - Limon had some under standing of the scope and structure of the criminal activity; that as the driver, he had an integral role in the criminal activity ; and that he stood to benefit , albeit minimally, from the criminal activity. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(C)(i), (iv), (v)). But the absence of evidence regarding Garcia’s decisionmaking author ity or influence, as well as his participation in planning and organiza tion , weighs in favor of mitigation. See § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(C)(ii) - (iii)). Accordingly, because “the factors support a plausible judgment in either dir ection[,]” the court did not clearly err in denying a mitigating - role adjust ment. Bello - Sanchez , 872 F .3d 264 - 65 (quote at 264). **AFFIRMED** . Case: 21-50030 Document: 00516280386 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2022