United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 95-4407.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Pedro Nel Cardozo VELOZA, a/k/a Pedro Nel Cardozo-Veloza,

Defendant-Appellant.

May 21, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida. (No. 94-599 CR-KMM), K. Michael Moore, Judge.

Before CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and DYER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

BARKETT, Circuit Judge:

Pedro Nel Cardozo Veloza appeals his sentence following his

guilty plea to importation of heroin. Veloza argues that the

district court erred in refusing to grant a downward adjustment

based upon his minor role in the offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2,

and a downward departure based upon his status as a deportable

alien under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0.

Veloza arrived at Miami International Airport on a flight from

Colombia. During a Customs inspection, officials discovered 799.2

grams of heroin hidden in the lining of two ski jackets found in

Veloza's luggage. Veloza admitted that he owned both the jackets

and the luggage. He stated that he had purchased the ski jackets

used to conceal the drugs in Bogota and that he had packed the

luggage, containing the heroin, himself. He further stated that he

knew that an illegal substance was "hiding inside the jackets"

although he thought it was 500 grams of cocaine. Veloza carried

$2,000 in cash and his ticket had been paid in cash. At
sentencing, he moved for a downward adjustment asserting that he

played only a minor role in the offense. He also moved for a

downward departure based upon his status as a deportable alien

because he would serve a longer and harsher sentence than a U.S.

citizen. The district court denied both motions and sentenced him

to seventy months incarceration.

 In Sentencing Guidelines cases, we review the district

court's findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions

de novo. United States v. Rojas, 47 F.3d 1078, 1080 (11th

Cir.1995).

 Veloza argues that the district court clearly erred in

concluding that he was not entitled to a downward adjustment for

playing a minor role under the facts presented in this case and in

suggesting that he might not have been entitled to the reduction

because he was a courier and therefore was "essential" to the

importation offense. Veloza contends that he should not have been

precluded from receiving a downward adjustment merely because he

was a courier or "mule." Although we agree with Veloza that the

act of transporting illegal drugs, in and of itself, cannot, as a

matter of law, preclude a defendant from receiving a downward

adjustment based on his role in the offense, we conclude that the

district court did not clearly err in denying an adjustment based

on the evidence, or lack thereof, presented in this case.

 The fact that Veloza was a courier who carried drugs into the

U.S. does not alone establish that he was a minor participant in

the conspiracy. United States v. Cacho, 951 F.2d 308, 310 (11th

Cir.1992). By the same token, the fact that a courier plays an
essential role in an importation scheme does not alone necessarily

preclude him from receiving a reduction for a minor role either.

Indeed, the guidelines provide as much. They recognize two levels

of participation that warrant a downward adjustment, minimal and

minor, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and define minimal as the least

culpable category and minor as more culpable than minimal, but less

culpable than most other participants. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2,

comment. (n.3). The guidelines provide that a minimal participant

receive a four-level reduction, while a minor participant may

receive only a two-level reduction. Id. Yet the guidelines

provide that it is appropriate to grant the larger reduction for

the lesser minimal participant "in a case where an individual was

recruited as a courier for a single smuggling transaction involving

a small amount of drugs." See Id., comment. (n.2). If the

guidelines foresee granting a four-level reduction to a courier as

a less-culpable minimal participant, they certainly do not

foreclose granting a two-level reduction to a courier as a minor

participant. Nevertheless, based on the evidence in this case, the

district court's factual finding that Veloza did not play a minor

role was not clearly erroneous.

 Second, Veloza contends that the district court erred in

refusing to grant a downward departure based on his status as a

deportable alien. Veloza argues that, because he is a deportable

alien, he will be ineligible to serve his sentence in a minimum

security facility and ineligible for a halfway house during the

last part of his sentence, making his sentence harsher than that of

a citizen. We adopt the Second Circuit's rationale in United
States v. Restrepo, 999 F.2d 640 (2nd Cir.1993). There, the Second

Circuit "decline[d] to rule that pertinent collateral consequences

of a defendant's alienage could not serve as a basis for departure

if those consequences were extraordinary in nature or degree[,]"

but held that "(1) the unavailability of preferred conditions of

confinement, (2) the possibility of an additional period of

detention pending deportation following the completion of the

sentence, and (3) the effect of deportation as banishment from the

United States and separation from family" were consequences of a

defendant's alienage that did not warrant a departure. Id. at 644.

Based on the reasoning of Restrepo, we find that the district court

did not err in denying Veloza's motion for a downward departure.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court.