* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40381

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LISA MARIE MORALES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-771-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lisa Marie Morales appeals the 90-month sentence imposed following her

guilty plea conviction for possession with the intent to distribute more than five

kilograms of methamphetamine. Morales argues that the district court erred in

denying her request for a reduction based on a minor or minimal role under

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. 

Whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant is a factual

determination reviewed for clear error. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40381

2

193, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2005). The defendant’s role is not evaluated in reference

to the entire criminal enterprise but in relation to the conduct for which he is

held accountable. United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir. 2001).

Given that Morales knew drugs were being transported in the vehicle and

allowed the vehicle to be purchased in her name in exchange for compensation,

the district court did not clearly err in concluding that a § 3B1.2 adjustment was

not warranted. 

Morales also argues that her within guidelines sentence is unreasonable

because the district court failed to account for her mental disabilities and gave

significant weight to the fact that she was to receive compensation for her role

in the offense. Morales did not object in the district court to the reasonableness

of her sentence; thus, review if for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505

F.3d 389, 392 (5th Cir. 2007). Because Morales was sentenced within a properly

calculated guidelines range, her sentence is entitled to a presumption of

reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 553-54 (5th Cir.

2006). In reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, this court examines whether

the district court’s sentence failed to “account for a factor that should have

received significant weight,” gave “significant weight to an irrelevant or

improper factor,” or represented “a clear error of judgment in balancing the

sentencing factors.” United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 128 S. Ct. 163 (2007). A review of the record results in the finding that

Morales’s sentence does not fall “so far afoul” of one of these standards as to

represent a clear abuse ofthe court’s broad sentencing discretion. See Nikonova,

480 F.3d at 376-77. The district court did not commit plain error. See Peltier,

505 F.3d at 392.

Morales further contends that her sentence is unreasonable because this

court’s rulings after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), have

effectively reinstated the mandatory guidelines regime condemned in Booker.

Morales concedes that this argument is foreclosed under circuit precedent but
No. 07-40381

3

seeks to preserve it for further review in light of the Supreme Court’s grant of

certiorari in Gall v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2933 (2007), and Kimbrough v.

United States, 127 S. Ct. 2933 (2007). Both Kimbrough and Gall have now been

decided, and these decisions do not impact this court’s review of the

reasonableness of Morales’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586

(2007); Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.