IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-41011

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN MARTIN CAVAZOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CR-486-1

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Martin Cavazos pleaded guilty to possessing with the intent to

distribute more than 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and was sentenced to 144 months in

prison. On appeal, Cavazos argues that the district court erred by denying him

a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) because he served as a courier. 

He also argues that the factual basis was insufficient to support his guilty plea.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 6, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-41011 Document: 00511912307 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2012
No. 11-41011

Cavazos’s argument that he was a minor participant based on his courier

status is unavailing. Cavazos admitted that he agreed to transport two gallonsized containers from Mercedes, Texas, to Forth Worth, Texas, for $3000; that

he thought he was transporting either LSD or a chemical used to manufacture

LSD in the containers; that he possessed the containers for more than one week;

and that he previously transported two similar containers to Fort Worth and, on

his return trip to Mercedes, $17,000 to the individual who provided him with the

containers. In light of the foregoing, the district court found that Cavazos

maintained custody and control over the methamphetamine for a considerable

period of time over a large geographic area and further that Cavazos’s

transportation of the methamphetamine was essential to the completion of the

crime. Cavazos has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his role

as a courier was peripheral to the advancement of the illicit activity. United

States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the district

court did not clearly err by denying him the minor role adjustment. United

States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 204 (5th Cir. 2005).

Cavazos also argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court

denied him a minor role reduction because it believed that such a reduction was

categorically inappropriate for the driver of a load. “A party must raise a claim

of error with the district court in such a manner so that the district court may

correct itself and thus, obviate the need for our review.” United States v.

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). Because Cavazos failed to raise his “fixed policy”

argument in the district court, his argument is reviewed for plain error only. See

id. 

A defendant may show that a district court engages in “mechanical

sentencing” by showing that the court used terms indicating a predisposition,

such as “routinely” or “habitually.” See United States v. Clements, 634 F.2d 183,

187 (5th Cir. 1981). In the instant case, the district court’s remarks do not

2

Case: 11-41011 Document: 00511912307 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2012
No. 11-41011

indicate that it “always” denied a minor role reduction to drug couriers. Rather,

the court’s remarks indicate that it found the minor role reduction inapplicable

based on the particular facts and circumstances in the instant case. Accordingly,

no plain error is shown. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

Cavazos also argues that the factual basis for his plea was insufficient

because the Government did not prove that he knew the type and quantity of

drugs that he was carrying. He acknowledges that this issue is foreclosed by

United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2009), and he raises this

issue to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-41011 Document: 00511912307 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/06/2012