Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this o pinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set fo rth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. Un ited St atesv . Garci a , 2 4 2 F .3 d 5 9 3 , 5 9 7( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). 1 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40084 Su m m ar y C al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. BR EN D A A N N G AM EZ , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 08- C R

- 660- 1
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * B rend a A n n G am ez app eal s t h e sente nc e i m po s e d f o l l o w i n g h er gui l t y pl ea c o n v i c t i o n f

o r t r ans po r t i n ga n u n l a wf u la l i e n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S
. C. § 1 32 4( a) ( 1) (A) ( i i) & ( B) ( i i)
. She a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c t c o ur t e r r e d i n de nyi ng h er a red u cti on in h er offen se l ev el for h er m i n or role in the off en se p u rsu a n t t o U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3B 1
. 2
. Ade fen d a n t ha s th e b u rd en of sh ow i n g th a t sh e is en ti tl ed to t h e dow n w ard adj u st m en t
. W h et h er t h e defen da n t is a m i n or part i ci pa n t i s a 1 United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40084

Un ited St atesv . Vi llan u ev a , 4 0 8F .3 d 1 9 3 , 2 0 3&n .9( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). 2 Id
. at 2 0 3(citationo mitt ed). 3 SeeGa rc ia , 2 4 2 F .3 d at 5 9 8 -9 9 ; United States v. Marmolejo , 10 6 F .3d 1 213 , 12 17 (5th 4 C ir
. 1 9 9 7). 2 fact u al deter m i n ati on t h at i s revi ew ed f or cl ear error . “A fact u alf i n di n g i s not 2
c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s if it is p la u s ib le in lig h t o f th e re c o r d re a d a s a w h o le .” 3 G am ez has not s how n t hat t he di st r i c t c our t c l ear l y e r r ed i n f i ndi ng t hat
s he w as no t ent i t l e d t o a m i no r ro l e adj us t m e ntunde r § 3B1. 2. N o t w i t hs t and i ng t hat G am ez ’ s r ol e i n t r anspo r t i ng t he al i en chi l d i n t he of fens e o f c onvi c t i on m ay h a ve be en on l y p a rt of a larg er sm u gg l i n g s ch em e, G a m ez w a s ch a rg ed w i th t ran sport i n g an u n docu m en t ed ali en f or pri vate f

i n an ci algai n – an d the recor d dem ons t r at es t hat s he agr ee d t o t r anspo r t a c hi l d w ho s he knew w as an undo c um e nt e d a l i e n a c r o s s t he U ni t e d St at e s bo r de r fo r pr i va t e f i nanc i alg ai n. G am e z ’ s r o l e w as no t m i n or, b utw as c e nt r alt o t he t r ans po r t at i o n o f t he
u n docu m en t ed ali en chi l d. Th e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot cl earl y err i n den yi n g h er 4
a r ol e a dj ust m ent under § 3 B 1. 2. G a m e z a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t co u r t e r r e d in fin d in gth a t s h e s h o u ld be he l d a c c o unt ab l e f o r he r r e l e va ntc o nduc t i n a p revi ou s al i e n s m ugg l i ng of fen se and t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n den yi n g h er a t h ree- l evelreducti on i n he r o f

fe ns e l e ve lf

o r ac c e pt anc e of

r e s po ns i bi l i t y unde r U
. S. S. G
. § 3 E1. 1. She
ar gue s t hats he pl e ad e d g ui l t y t o a nd a dm i t t e d he r i nvo l ve m e nti n t he i ns t ant of fen se of transp ort i n g an il l egal al i en . S h e a rgues t h at t h e G overnm en t fai l ed t o pr o ve t hats he w as i nvo l ve d i n t he pr i o r a l i e n s m ugg l i ng o f fe ns e , a nd s he af f i rm ati vel y den i ed an y i n vol vem en t i n t h e pri or of fen se. T h e di st ri ctcourt di d not cl earl y err i n f i n di n g t h at G am ez w as i n vol ved i n t h e pri or al i en sm u ggl i n g of fen se and shou l d b e h e ld a ccou n t able f or her rel evan t condu cti n t h at of fen se. F u rt h er, t h e di st ri ct court di d n ot cl earl y err i n f i n di n g t h at G am ez den i ed her rel evan t cond u ct an d, t h eref ore , w a s n otN o. 09- 40084

SeeU n ited St atesv . Sol is , 2 9 9F .3 d 4 2 0 , 4 5 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 2 ); United States v. Outlaw , 5 319 F.3 d 701 , 705 (5th Cir. 200 3) (reciting that – for deni als of areduction for acceptance of respon sibility– the standard o f re vi ew i s even more defere ntial thanth e pure clearly erro n eo u s s tan dard). See U. S. S. G. § 3 E 1 .1 c mt
. n .1 (a); Un ited St atesv . Me d ina-An icac io , 325 F.3d 638 , 64 8 6 (5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 3). SeeMe d ina-An icac io , 32 5 F .3d at 6 48. 7 3 e nt i t l e d t o a r e duc t i o n i n he r o f fe ns e l e ve lf

o r a c c e pt anc e o f

r e s po ns i bi l i t y. The 5 Pres ent enc e Repor t ( PS R ) and s ent enc i ng t r ansc r i pt s upportt he c onc l usi on t hat G am ez w as i n vol ved i n t h e pri or al i en sm u ggl i n g of fen se, an d G am ez consi st en t l y den i ed h er i n vol vem en t i n t h at of fen se. A l t h ou gh G am ez w as not requ i red to af

f i rm ati vel y ad m i t rel evan t condu ct , she den i ed rel evan t condu ct t hatt he di s t r i c t co ur t fo und t o be t r ue . Bec aus e t he re c o r d pr o vi de s a s uf f i c i e nt 6 f o unda t i o n f

o r t he di s t r i c t cou rt ’ s f i ndi ng t hatG am e z w as i nvo l ve d i n t he previ ou s al i en sm u ggl i n g of fen se an d f

or the di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof accept an ce of res pon sibi l i t y, t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot cl earl y err i n hol di n g G am ez a c c o u n ta b le fo r h e r re le v a n t c o n d u c t in th e p r io r a lie n s m u g g lin go ffe n s e o r in denyi ng a r educ t i on i n her of fens e l eve lf

orac c ept ance of

r es ponsibi l i t y. 7 AF F I RMED.