F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 2 1, 2006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1171 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 41 3- CR-T-2 4- EAJ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JOSE M ILLER CUERO-SINIS TERRA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(S ep te m be r 21, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN Aand H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:
D ef en dant- Appe llant J ose Mi lle r Cu er o- Si nis te rr a ap pe al s hi s 13 5- m onth
se nte nc e im

pose d a ft er

he ple d gu ilty

to (1 ) poss es sio n w ithint en t t o di str ibu teOn

a pp e a l Cu e ro -S ini ste rr a a lso argue s for the fi rs t time that he wa s ent itl e d to a min ima l r ole * re du c tio n und e r U .S. S.G . § 3B 1. 2( a ). B e c a us e we c on c lud e tha

t th e dis tr ic t cou rt di d no t e rr in ref using to a pply a minor role reduc tion, we reje ct Cuero-Sinisterra ’s argument about rec eivingno minimal role reduc tion. 2 fi ve kil ogr am s or

m or e of c oc ai ne w hil e ab oard

ave sse l su

bj ec t t o th e j ur isd ic tio n of the U nit ed

S ta te s, in vio la tio n of

46 App. U
. S. C. § 19 03( a) , ( g) ; 18 U
. S. C. § 2;
an d 21 U
. S. C. § 96 0( b) (1 )( B) (i i) ; and ( 2) c onsp ir ac y to poss es s w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te f

ive kil ogr am s or

m or e of c oc ai ne w hil e ab oard

a ve sse l su bj ec t t o th e j ur isd ic tio n of

the U nit ed

S ta te s, in vio la tio n of

46 App. U
. S. C. § 19 03( a) , ( g) , and (j); an d 2 1 U.S.C. § 96 0( b) (1 )(B) (ii ). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we
a f f i rm. Cu er o- Si nis te rr a as se rt s th at the dis tr ic t e rr ed

in de ny ing him

am ino r ro le
re duc tio n purs uant t o U
. S. S. G
. § 3B 1. 2( b)
. H e co nte nds that he w as le ss c ulp ab le * than th e oth er

pe rs ons fo und on the boat ( w hic h w as c ar ry ing 269 ba le s of cocaine) bec ause he w as not essential to th e sm uggl ing op eration, w as not awar e of the sc ope of

the ope ratio n, and d id n ot h av e a pr opr ie tary int er es t i n th e
sm uggl ed dr ugs. C ue ro -S ini ste rr a al so c ont en ds tha t he w as on the boat on ly to assist in u nloadin g the cocaine. We r ev i ew fo r c l ea r e rr o r “a d i s tri ct co u rt ’s d et er m i n at i o n o f ad ef en d an t ’s role in the offense. ” U nited States v. D e V aron, 175 F. 3d 93 0, 937 (11th Cir.3

1999 ) (e n banc). Under U. S. S. G. § 3B1.2(b), “ [a] defendant warrants a tw o-level
re duc tio n f

or play ing am ino r ro le in anof fe nse if he is le ss c ulp ab le than m ost other participants, although his role could no t be described as m inim al.” U nited St at es v. Ry an , 289 F
. 3d 1 339, 134 8 ( 11th C ir
. 200 2)
. T he de fe ndant h as the bur de n of e sta bli shi ng h is r ole by

apr ep onde ranc e of

e vid en ce . D e V ar on, 175 F. 3d at 93 9. Se nte nc ing c ourts s houl d c onsi de r tw o e le m en ts whe n de te rm ini ng a defendant’ s role in an offense: “ first, the defendant’ s role in the relevant conduct for which [he] has been held accountable at sentencing, and, sec ond, [his] role as
co m pare d to that of

oth er part ic ipants in [h is] r el ev an t c ondu ct . ” I d. a t 94 0. T he first elem ent is m ore im

portant and, in m any

cases, m ay

end the inqu iry
. See id. at 94 5. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed no c le ar e rr or in de te rm ini ng tha t C ue ro Si nis te rr a’ s r ole in the of fe nse w as m or e than m ino r. About the f ir st e le m en t, Cu er o- Si nis te rr a’ s se nte nc e w as ba se d on ly on the r el ev an t c ondu ct

f or w hic h he
w as he ld a cc ount ab le a t se nte nc ing : the 269 ba le s of c oc ai ne se iz ed

f ro m the dr ug
sm uggl ing bo at. He wa s held accountable for no larger quantity
. And the district
co urt c or re ct ly poi nte d to the boat’ s “ huge ” dr ug quanti ty

in de ny ing Cu er oSinisterra a

m inor role reduction. Se e id. at 943 (not ing th at, in the drug cou rier4

co nte xt, the a m ount

of dr ugs is a “ m at er ia l c onsi de ratio n” in as se ssi ng a de fe ndant’ s r ole in his r el ev an t c ondu ct ). About the se co nd e le m en t, Cu er oSinisterra w as one of only nine persons o n the boat, w hich was carry ing a very larg e co ca ine de liv er

y . H e ha s f

ai le d to sho wthat he w as “ le ss c ulp ab le than m ost oth er part ic ipants in [h is] r el ev an t c ondu ct , ” id. a t 94 4; and w e se e no c le ar e rr or in the dist rict court’ s refusal to apply a m inor role reduction in th is case. AFFIR MED.