* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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

5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40944

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHELLE STEVENSON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:00-CR-4-6

April 30, 2001

Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The prosecut or appeals the sentence imposed on Michelle Stevenson, contending

that the trial court erred in making a downward adjustment based on its finding that she1 United States v. Stevenson , 126 F.3d 662 (5th Cir. 1997).

2 United States v. Thomas

, 963 F.3d 63, 6 4 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting 18 U.S.C. §

3742(e)).

3 United States v. Valencia-Gonzalez , 172 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 1999), c ert

. d enied

, 528 U.S. 894 (1999); United States v. Gallegos , 868 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1989).

2 was a minimal participant in the drug violations before the court. Stevenson was one

of thirteen persons charged with conspiracy to distribute and distribution of cocaine

base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1) & 846. She entered a guilty plea and

c ooperated with the investigation, offering to testify in the resulting trial. The court

imposed a sentence of 30 months of imprisonment and three years supervised release.

The government appeals.

The trial court’s application of the sentencing guidelines is reviewed d e novo ;

its findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. 1 A sentence will be upheld unless it

“(1) was imposed in violation of law; (2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect

application of the sentencing guidelines; or (3) is outside the applicable guideline

r ange.” 2 The determination respecting a defendant’s role in the offense is a factual

finding revie wable for clear error. 3 Section 3B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines

provides for an adjustment if a defendant had a mitigating role in the offense. It states:

B ased on the defendant’s role in the offense, decrease the offense level

as follows:3

(a) If the defendant was a minimal participant in any criminal activity,

decrease by 4 levels.

(b) If t he defendant was a minor participant in any criminal activity,

decrease by 2 levels.

In cases falling between (a) and (b), decrease by 3 levels.

The district court not only received Stevens on’s guilty plea and the relevant

presentence report, it dealt with the disposition of the other offenders. The entirety of

the illegal drug activities were presented to the court in great detail. Based on relevant

evidence and data before it the court specifically found, inter alia

, that Stevenson was

among the least culpable of the conspirators, that she lacked particularized knowledge

of the scope and structure of the conspiracy, that her role was not essential to the

conspiracy, and that her involvement effectively was d e minimis

. Despite the

government’s arguments to the contrary, we are not persuad ed that the district court

clearly erred in its factual assessm ent of Stevenson’s p articipation in the charged

offenses. Our review of the relevant portion of the record otherwise persuades. We

are cognizant of and defer to the trial court’s vital role in making factual determinations

which, in many instances, involve critical credibility calls. We perceive no error in the

trial court’s imposition of sentence herein and, accordingly, the sentence appealed is

AFFIRMED.