### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH 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 p ossessing 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. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D July 6, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-41011 Document: 00511912307 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2012No. 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 distric t c o urt f ound that Cavazos maintained custody and control over the methamphetamine for a considerable period of time over a large geogr a p hi c ar ea 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 cou ri e r w a s peripheral to the advancement of the illicit activity. United States v. Garcia , 242 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 1 )

. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by denying him the mino r r o l e a d j u stment. United States v. Villanueva , 408 F.3d 193, 204 (5th Cir. 200 5). Cavazos also argues, for the first time on ap p e al , 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 thu s , ob vi at e the need for our review.” United States v. Mondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 20 0 9) (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 di s tri c t court engages in “mechanical sentencing” by showing that the court used t e r m s i n dicating a predisposition, such as “routinely” or “habitually.” See United States v. Clements , 634 F.2d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 1981). In the instant cas e , th e district court’s remarks do not
2 Case: 11-41011 Document: 00511912307 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2012No. 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 insu f f i c i ent because the Government did not prove that he knew the type a n d quantity of drugs that he w as carrying. He acknowledges that this issue is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt , 586 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 20 0 9), 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