United States Court of Appeals

for 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 containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and conspiracy to do the same. 

He raises arguments pertaining to the denial of a mitigating-role adjustment

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances 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 Circuit Rule 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: 04/14/2022
No. 21-50030

2

per U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

First, Garcia-Limon posits that the district court incorrectly interpreted § 3B1.2 because it did not clearly compare his relative culpability to 

that of the other actors in the criminal activity. Although he objected to the 

lack of a mitigating-role adjustment, Garcia-Limon did not preserve this argument on appeal. See United States v. Pike, 979 F.3d 364, 365–66 (5th Cir. 

2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1278 (2021). Accordingly, 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).

Insofar as the district court did not sufficiently articulate its finding 

regarding the average participant in the criminal activity or its other reasoning, a court must articulate such points only where 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. Moreover, the record does not support his contention that the district court incorrectly interpreted § 3B1.2 to mean that a mitigating-role adjustment is not 

applicable to a defendant who is involved in any criminal activity at all. The 

court’s statements that Garcia cites for this theory were not a direct reflection 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) (internal 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 United States v. GomezValle, 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: 04/14/2022
No. 21-50030

3

Where 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. BelloSanchez, 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 understanding 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 

authority or influence, as well as his participation in planning and organization, weighs in favor of mitigation. See § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(C)(ii)-(iii)). 

Accordingly, because “the factors support a plausible judgment in either direction[,]” the court did not clearly err in denying a mitigating-role adjustment. Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d 264-65 (quote at 264). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50030 Document: 00516280386 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2022