UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5046

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AGUSTO VALVERDE-MORALES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00134-JAB-3)

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 26, 2012

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anne R. Littlejohn, LAW OFFICE OF ANNE R. LITTLEJOHN, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United 

States Attorney, Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Agusto Valverde-Morales appeals the twenty-two-month 

sentence he received on his guilty plea to one count of 

importation of an alien for an immoral purpose, in violation of 

8 U.S.C. § 1328 (2006). The lone issue he asserts on appeal is 

that the sentencing court erred in declining to grant him a twolevel minor participant reduction under U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.2(b) (2011). For the following 

reasons, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an 

abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007). In assessing whether a sentencing court properly 

applied the Guidelines, the district court’s factual findings 

are reviewed for clear error and its legal conclusions are 

reviewed de novo. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 

(4th Cir. 2008). We will “find clear error only if, on the 

entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. 

Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation 

marks, alteration, and citation omitted).

Under the Guidelines, a defendant who is only a “minor 

participant” in criminal activity is eligible for a two-level 

reduction in offense level. USSG § 3B1.2(b). This applies to a 

defendant who is “substantially less culpable than the average 
3

participant,” “but whose role could not be described as 

minimal.” USSG § 3B1.2(b), cmt. n.3(A) & n.5. While the 

decision whether the defendant played a minor role hinges in 

part on a comparison of his conduct with that of his codefendants, the “critical inquiry is . . . not just whether the 

defendant has done fewer bad acts than his co-defendants, but 

whether the defendant’s conduct is material or essential to 

committing the offense.” United States v. Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 

646 (4th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). The defendant has the 

burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he 

played a minor role in the offense. United States v. Akinkoye, 

185 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999).

Under these principles, we are convinced that the 

district court did not clearly err in finding the minor 

participant reduction inapplicable to Valverde-Morales. The 

statute under which Valverde-Morales was convicted, 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1328, forbids the importation of an alien for prostitution and 

criminalizes anyone who “keep[s], maintain[s], control[s], 

support[s], employ[s], or harbor[s] in any house or other place, 

for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral 

purpose, any alien, in pursuance of such illegal importation.” 

Id. Although Valverde-Morales insists that he served at the 

Fitch Street location in largely a janitorial capacity rather 

than as a substantial member of the prostitution ring, he has 
4

admitted that he maintained the residence at which several of 

the prostitutes were held and that he transported various of the 

prostitutes and his codefendants to assignations with their 

clients. We believe this involvement is, at minimum, “material 

. . . to committing the offense,” Pratt, 239 F.3d at 646, 

inasmuch as it contributed to the maintenance, support, and 

harboring of the illegal prostitution activity. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1328. As a result, the district court did not clearly err in 

denying Valverde-Morales’ request for a two-level reduction 

under § 3B1.2(b).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the material 

before the court and argument will not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED