# 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: cons piracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin; conspira cy 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: 04/06/2023No. 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 cour t 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 Gu ideline § 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 impr operly calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007). If no such procedural error ex ists, 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, on ly for clear error. E.g. , United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Guideline 3B1.2 “provi des a range of adjustments for a defendant who plays a part in committing the offe nse 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 d emonstrating 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 Carretodid have some understanding of the scope and structure of the drugtrafficking conspiracy because: he wa s present for several of his brother’s Case: 22-40161 Document: 00516703460 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2023No. 22-40161

3 drug deals; he acted as a lookout and se curity 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 orga nizing; 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 Carret o was entitled to a minor-role reduction but was not a minimal particip ant in the offense was “plausible in light of the record read as a whole” an d, therefore, not clearly erroneous. United States v. Gomez-Valle , 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Additionally, to the exte nt “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