FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T APRI L 28, 201 0 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 22 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 20 33 7- CR-J EM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ROGELIO CABRERA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 28 , 20 10 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, BIRC H andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ro ge li o C ab reraap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es im po se d fo r co ns pi racy to t ran sp ort s to le n g oo ds , recei vi ng or p os se ss in g s to le n g oo ds , and kn owi ng ly tran sp orti ng st ol engo od s. Cabr era a ss ert s t wo i ss ue s o n app eal . He cl ai m s (1 ) th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on s, an d (2 ) th e di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r a two- le ve l re du ct io n i n h is off en se le ve l b as edon hi s m in orrol e in th e o ffen se . W e co nc lu de th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt C ab rera ’s con vi ct io ns an d t ha t t he di stric t co urt d idno t err in de nyin g C ab reraa m in or -ro le reduc ti on . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . I. SUFFIC IENCY OF THE EV IDENCE W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r acqui tt al ba se d o n su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce de no vo , “ vi ewin g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e g ov ern m en t an d d rawi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof t he ve rd ic t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. S ch ie r , 43 8 F .3d11 04 , 11 07 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A jury is free to di sb el ie ve a de fen da nt ’s tes ti m on y an d c on si de r an y

fal se ex pl an at io n h e gi ve s fo r hi s b eh av io r as subs ta nt iv e ev id en ce o f hi s g ui lt . Uni te d Sta tes v. W il li ams on , 33 9 F .3d12 95 , 13 01 n.1 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . A. Co ns pi ra cy Cab rerafir stch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of the ev id en ce t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on forco ns pi racy to t ran sp ort s to le n g oo ds inin te rs ta te co m m erce . To 2pr ov e Cab reravi ol at ed18 U.S.C. § 3 71 , th e Gov ern m en t was requi redto sh ow

(1 ) Cab reraco ns pi redwith a t l eas t o ne ot he r pe rs on to “ to ach ie ve anun la wfu l ob jecti ve ;” (2) Cab rerakn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly part ic ip at edin th e co ns pi racy; an d (3 ) anov ertactwas c omm it te d t o fu rth er the co ns pi racy. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Harmas , 97 4 F .2d12 62 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). Becaus e co ns pi racy offen se s ar e

“pr ed om in at el y

m en ta l i n c om

po si ti on ,” th e g ov ern m en t m ay rel y on ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o d em on strat e a m eet in g o f th e m in ds . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ari as -Iz qu ie rdo , 44 9 F .3d11 68 , 11 82 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Pres en ce an d a ss oc ia ti on , whi le no t co nt ro ll in g, ar e p ro ba ti ve of c on sp ira cy an d m ay be co ns id eredby the jury. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ll ue sma , 45 F.3d40 8, 4 10 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Cab reracla im s h is co nv ic ti on res te d s ol el y on ev id en ce t ha t h e as so ci at ed wit h t he pe rs on s wh o ro bb edth e wareh ou se s. He cl ai m s t he re was no ev id en ce h e actua ll y kn ew ab ou t o r pa rti ci pa te d i n t he co ns pi racy to s te al th e m erch an di se . Howev er, Cab reraadm it s t o d riv in g t he othe r co ns pi rat or s fr om Flo rid a to Texa s an d re nt in g aho te l ro om

forth em ov er the week en d o f th e b reak -in . He was fo un d wi th th e co -co ns pi rat or s i n t he wareh ou se areane ar the ti m e o f th e b reak -in whi le in po ss es si on of b ur gl ary to ol s. He was als o t ie d t o t he tru ckus edto tra ns po rt s to le n g oo ds ba ckto Flo rid a. Drawin g i nf eren ces inth e Gov ern m en t’s

3fav or , a reas on ab le jury co ul d c on cl ud e th atCab rerawas akn owi ng pa rti ci pa ntin

th e co ns pi racy to s te al fro m th e wareh ou se s. B. Recei vi ng

an d T ra ns po rt in g Sto le n Go od

s Cab rerane xtdi sp ut es th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on s fo r rec ei vi ng st ol engo od s u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 23 15 , andtra ns po rti ng st ol engo od s u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 23 14 . To supp ort a c on vi ct io n u nd er ea ch of t he se st atut es , th e Gov ern m en t was requi redto sh ow Cabr era kne w th e g oo ds in qu es ti on were s to le n. Se e18 U.S.C. §§ 23 14 , 23 15 . Cab reraco nt en ds th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o d em on st rat e th athe kn ew th e g oo ds were s to le n. Cabr era’s as so ci at io n wi th th e o th er ro bb ers in th e are a o f th e b reak -in ne ar the ti m e o f th e cri m e whi le in po ss es si on of t he type o f to ol s ne ed edto acco m

pl is h t he th eft , alo ng with h is fai lu re t o o ffer a pl au si bl e al te rn at iv e ex pl an at io n a s t o h is reas on fortra ve li ng fro m Flo rid a to Texa s wi th th e o th er ro bb ers on th e week en d o f th e cri m e, was su ffi ci en t t o a ll ow a r eas on ab le jury to co nc lu de th atCab rerakn ew th e g oo ds in qu es ti on were s to le n. Hav in g fo un d the ev id en ce s uf

fic ie ntto supp ort t he jury’ s v erd ic t o n a ll th ree c ou nt s, we affi rm Cab rera ’s con vi ct io ns .

4II. ROLE IN THE OFFENSE

W e rev ie w forcle ar erro r th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f anoff en se -le ve l reduc ti on reque st edfora m it ig at in g ro le in anoff en se . Uni te d Sta tes v. De Va ro n , 17 5 F .3d93 0, 9 37 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) ( en ba nc ). The d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs m ay be ba se d o n e vi de nc e attri al , un di sp ut edst at em en ts in th e Pre se nt en ce In ve st ig at io n R ep ort (P SI), an d e vi de nc e atth e se nt en ci ng he ari ng . Uni te d Sta te s v. Pol ar , 36 9 F .3d12 48 , 12 55 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). The Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es pro vi de th at , with re gardto th e o ffen se lev el , “ if th e d efen da ntwas am in orpa rti ci pa ntin any cri m in al act iv it y , dec reas e b y 2 le ve ls .” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2(b ). A min orpa rti ci pa ntm ean s an y pa rti ci pa nt“ who is le ss cu lp ab le th anm os t o th er p art ic ip an ts , bu t wh os e ro le co ul d n otbe de sc rib ed as m in im al .” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2 cmt. 5 . The p ro po ne ntof a n a dju st m en t b ears th e bu rd enof p ro vi ng hi s s en te nc e sh ou ldbe reduc edto refl ecthi s ro le in th e o ffen se by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. De Var on , 17 5 F .3dat 9 39 . The PSI fo un d C ab reraren te d aho te l ro om an d ave hi cl e o n b eh al f of th e co ns pi racy. It a ls o n ot edth e co ns pi racy’ s ri ng lea de r st at edth atCab rera pe rs on al ly hel pe d b reakin to th e wareh ou se . Cab reradi d n otob ject t o t ho se fin di ng s. We th us co nc lu de th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g tha t

5Cab reradi d n otqu al ify for a m in orrol e reduc ti on . W e, acc or di ng ly, affi rm hi s se nt en ce. AFFIRMED.

6