United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10550

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Sergio Amaya-Martinez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-362-15

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Sergio Amaya-Martinez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 

841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Amaya-Martinez to 168 

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Amaya-

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 16, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10550 Document: 00515824487 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2021
No. 20-10550

2

Martinez appeals, arguing that the district court erred in denying his request

for a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

This court reviews preserved challenges to the district court’s 

interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its 

factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Rodriguez, 630 F.3d 377, 

380 (5th Cir. 2011). Whether Amaya-Martinez was a minimal or minor 

participant under § 3B1.2 is a factual determination that this court reviews 

for clear error. United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 

2016).

According to Amaya-Martinez, he “was clearly a less than average 

participant” and “substantially less culpable” than his co-conspirators 

Bernardo Martinez and Carlos Dominguez. See United States v. Castro, 843 

F.3d 608, 613 (5th Cir. 2016). He claims that he “did not plan or organize 

the [criminal] activity”; he had no decision-making authority and merely 

“followed orders”; he was not the supply source or “even the middleman”; 

and was “on the lower rung of the participant ladder” below his coconspirators Martinez and Dominguez.

Amaya-Martinez provides no record citations for these claims, but as 

the presentence report explains, the members of the conspiracy “maintained 

a fluid hierarchy that evolved over time.” Additionally, the record shows 

that Amaya-Martinez actively participated in three large drug transactions.

Amaya-Martinez relies on a single case, United States v. Sotelo, 97 F.3d 

782, 799 (5th Cir. 1996), for the proposition that he was entitled to at least a 

two-point, minor role adjustment. He makes several comparisons between 

his conspiracy-related activities and those of the defendant in Sotelo, who 

received a two-point reduction for a minor role. See id. This argument is 

unavailing as “the defendant’s culpability is determined only by reference to 

his or her co-participants in the case at hand.” United States v. Bello-Sanchez, 

Case: 20-10550 Document: 00515824487 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2021
No. 20-10550

3

872 F.3d 260, 264 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

Even if this court could consider a defendant’s conduct in an 

unrelated case, Sotelois of little benefit to Amaya-Martinez. In Sotelo, 97 F.3d 

at 799, the propriety of the minor role reduction was not at issue on appeal, 

and this court did not comment on its appropriateness. Rather, the Sotelo

court rejected the defendant’s claim that he should have received a fourpoint reduction for being a minimal (rather than a minor) participant. Id.

Because Amaya-Hernandez has failed to carry his burden of showing 

that he was entitled to a mitigating role adjustment, the judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED. See Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d at 207.

Case: 20-10550 Document: 00515824487 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/16/2021