United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40163

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Edson Roman Gonzalez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-78-3

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Edson Roman Gonzalez appeals the 170-month, within-guidelines

range sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. Gonzalez 

contends that (1) the district court erred by failing to apply a mitigating role 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 8, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40163 Document: 00515891653 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2021
No. 20-40163

2

adjustment, (2) his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it creates 

an unwarranted disparity with a similarly situated codefendant, and (3) the 

district court erred by applying an importation enhancement. We affirm.

Gonzalez fails to show that the district court’s finding that he was not 

substantially less culpable than the average participant in the drug trafficking 

conspiracy was not plausible in light of the record. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 

& comment. (n.3(A)); United States v. Castro, 843 F.3d 608, 613 (5th Cir. 

2016); United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010). He makes 

no showing that his actions of siphoning liquid methamphetamine from a 

transport vehicle to barrels for conversion into solid product and procuring 

supplies needed to perform the conversion were “at best . . . peripheral to the 

advancement of” the goals of the drug distribution conspiracy. Castro, 843 

F.3d at 613-14 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). That he may 

have “do[ne] less” than some other participants does not alone warrant a 

mitigating role adjustment. United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 446 (5th 

Cir. 2001).

Nor does Gonzalez show that the disparity between his sentence and 

the 120-month sentence received by his codefendant Delgado was

unwarranted. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Gonzalez and Delgado did not 

engage in “similar conduct,” id.; Delgado was a mere “gopher” tasked only 

with confirming the delivery of liquid methamphetamine. The mere 

disparity between Gonzalez’s and Delgado’s sentences does not, without 

more, show that the district court abused its discretion or that Gonzalez’s

sentence is substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 

173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 

339 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Lindell, 881 F.2d 1313, 1324 (5th Cir. 

1989).

Case: 20-40163 Document: 00515891653 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2021
No. 20-40163

3

Lastly, Gonzalez fails to show error in the district court’s application 

of an importation enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5). First, the

district court did not err in finding that Gonzalez was not subject to a 

mitigating role adjustment so as to make § 2D1.1(b)(5) inapplicable. See id. 

Second, we have previously rejected the argument that § 2D1.1(b)(5) 

requires a showing of scienter as to the imported nature of 

methamphetamine. See United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 550-54 (5th 

Cir. 2012).

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-40163 Document: 00515891653 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/08/2021