IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50369

c/w No. 10-50371

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARICELA TARIN, also known as Marisela Tarin,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 10-50371

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARICELA TARIN, 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-1879-1

USDC No. 3:09-CR-3402-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 17, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 10-50369

c/w No. 10-50371

* 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.

2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maricela Tarin pleaded guilty to importing and possessing with intent to

distribute marijuana. The district court sentenced Tarin to 24 months of

imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently, and to five years of

supervised release for each count, to be served concurrently. Tarin appeals her

sentence, arguing that she was entitled to a two-level reduction in her offense

level under U.S.S.G § 3B1.2(b) as a minor participant in the drug-trafficking

operation.

The district court’s refusal to grant a minor participant adjustment is a

factual determination that is reviewed for clear error. See United States v.

Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir. 2005). The defendant bears the burden

of proving that she is entitled to this downward adjustment. United States v.

Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 2001).

Tarin has not shown thatthe district court clearly erred in concluding that

she failed to establish that she played only a minor role in the offense. See

Burton v. United States, 237 F.3d 490, 503 (5th Cir. 2000). Tarin’s sentence was

based entirely on the conduct that she was directly involved in and the quantity

of drugs that she personally transported; thus, a minor role adjustment was not

required even if she played only a small part in a larger enterprise. See Garcia,

242 F.3d at 598-99(“Section 3B1.2 does not contemplate that the participation

level is to be evaluated in reference to the entire criminal enterprise of which

Defendant is a part.”); United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir.

1995)(“We . . . conclude that when a sentence is based on an activity in which a

defendant was actually involved, §3B1.2 does not require a reduction in the base
No. 10-50369

c/w No. 10-50371

3

offense level even though the defendant’s activity in a larger conspiracy may

have been minor . . . .”). Moreover, Tarin’s argument that she should have

received the adjustment because she was merely a drug courier with little

knowledge of the smuggling operation is unavailing. A courier is often

“indispensable” to a drug-smuggling operation, United States v. Buenrostro, 868

F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1989), and thus is not automatically entitled to a minor

role adjustment. Id.(“Without somebody to take the drugs across the border,the

drugs will never reach their illicit market.”). Tarin’s role in transporting 32.01

kilograms of drugs across the border was more than peripheral; therefore, the

district court did not clearly err in finding that she was not a minor participant.

See Villanueva, 408 F.3d at 203-04.

At the time Tarin committed the instant offenses, she was on supervised

release for a 2006 drug related conviction. Her commission of these offenses

resulted in a revocation of her supervised release. Although Tarin has appealed

the revocation of her supervised release, she has failed to raise any arguments

in support of that appeal. Because issues not briefed on appeal are waived, see

United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 611 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000), Tarin has waived

any argument concerning the district court’s revocation of her supervised

release. 

The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.