United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-40161 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Isauro Carreto-Cruz, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:19-CR-301-2 

______________________________ 

Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Isauro Carreto-Cruz was convicted by a jury of: conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin; conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine; and possession of 

with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin. See 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

April 6, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-40161 Document: 00516703460 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
No. 22-40161 

2 

U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. He was sentenced to, inter alia, a within-Guidelines 

range of 78-months’ imprisonment. 

Carreto contends the district court erred by finding he was a minor 

participant in the drug conspiracy and granting a two-level reduction to his 

offense level, pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.2(b), instead of finding 

that he was a minimal participant and granting a four-level reduction under 

§ 3B1.2(a). 

Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, the district 

court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating 

the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 

(2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to 

an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 

564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in 

district court, as in this instance, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed 

de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. 

Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). 

 Guideline 3B1.2 “provides a range of adjustments for a defendant 

who plays a part in committing the offense that makes him substantially less 

culpable than the average participant in the criminal activity”. § 3B1.2 cmt. 

n.3(A). Carreto has the burden of demonstrating his entitlement to a minor 

or minimal role adjustment. E.g., United States v. Castro, 843 F.3d 608, 612 

(5th Cir. 2016). 

In granting a minor-role reduction but denying a minimal-participant 

reduction, the court agreed that Carreto was substantially less culpable than 

the other participants in the offense. The court noted, however, that Carreto 

did have some understanding of the scope and structure of the drugtrafficking conspiracy because: he was present for several of his brother’s 

Case: 22-40161 Document: 00516703460 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
No. 22-40161 

3 

drug deals; he acted as a lookout and security for the deals; and the apartment 

he leased was used as a “stash house”. We have upheld the denial of rolereduction adjustments in similar cases. See, e.g., United States v. Jordan, 945 

F.3d 245, 265 (5th Cir. 2019) (affirming denial of role adjustment where 

defendant had some knowledge of scope and structure of bank robbery 

offense; was somewhat involved in planning or organizing; and acted as 

a lookout, maintained communication throughout offense, and tried to flee 

scene); Castro, 843 F.3d at 612–14 (affirming denial of mitigating role 

reduction for courier who transported drugs and proceeds as part of drug 

trafficking organization). 

The court’s finding that Carreto was entitled to a minor-role 

reduction but was not a minimal participant in the offense was “plausible in 

light of the record read as a whole” and, therefore, not clearly erroneous. 

United States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation 

omitted). Additionally, to the extent “the factors support a plausible 

judgment in either direction”, the court did not clearly err in denying a 

minimal-participant adjustment. United States v. Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d 

260, 264–65 (5th Cir. 2017). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 22-40161 Document: 00516703460 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2023