### 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 ClerkNo. 10-50369 c/w No. 10-50371

* Pursuant to 5

TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. 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 Uni ted States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir. 2005). The defendant bears the burden of provi ng that she is entitled to this downward adjustment. U nited States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 2001). Tarin has not shown that thedistrict 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 shewas directly involved in and the quantity ofdrugs that she personally transported; thus, a minor role adjustment was not required even ifshe played only a small part in a larger enterprise. SeeGarcia, 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.”); U nited 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 wasactually involved, §3B1.2 does not requirea reduction in the baseNo. 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” toa drug-smuggling operation, United Statesv. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1989), and thus is not automatically entitled to a minor role adjustment. I d. (“Without somebody totake thedrugsacross 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 ofher 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, s ee United Statesv. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 611 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000), Tarin haswaived any argument concerning the district court’s revocation of her supervised release. The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.