Source: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-perez-solis
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:38:55+00:00

Document:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Israel PEREZ–SOLIS, Defendant–Appellant.
Terri–Lei O'Malley, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff–Appellee. Seth Kretzer, Law Offices of Seth Kretzer, Houston, TX, for Defendant–Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Rene Martinez and Israel Perez–Solis (“Perez”) were charged with possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and conspiracy to do the same. Perez pleaded not guilty and requested a jury trial. Following his conviction on both counts, the district court sentenced him to 292 months of imprisonment. We AFFIRM the judgment of sentence and conviction.
.18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (conspiracy).
Perez received a 292 month sentence on each count, to be served concurrently. The court also sentenced him to a five-year term of supervised release on each count, to be served concurrently, as well as payment of a $200 assessment and $5,000 fine.
This case arises out of a drug transaction conducted on May 23, 2011. On May 10, undercover agent Jose Lopez was introduced to Rene Martinez. Lopez told Martinez that he sought to purchase four pounds of methamphetamine. Around May 20, at The Golden Corral restaurant in Laredo, Texas, Martinez provided Lopez with several methamphetamine samples supplied by Martinez's “cousin.” Martinez informed Lopez that the four pounds of methamphetamine were in Mexico, but that they would be smuggled into the United States and, on May 23, delivered to Lopez. The delivery was to take place in a parking lot near The Golden Corral, for a price of $13,000 per pound.
On May 23, Martinez arrived at the parking lot in a black truck. He informed Lopez that a friend had the methamphetamine in a white van and instructed that person to drive over to them. Lopez saw the van and directed it into a parking spot across from where Martinez was stopped. Martinez and Lopez walked over to the van. Lopez then met the driver—appellant Israel Perez–Solis—whom Lopez had not previously seen or suspected of involvement.
Lopez secretly recorded his conversation with Perez and Martinez. At trial, Lopez testified that the conversation went as follows: Lopez asked Perez whether he had “it,” referring to the methamphetamine. Perez said “we need [ ] to go somewhere else to take it out” because it was in “a compartment.” After Lopez asked where “it” was, Perez stepped out of the van and walked to its trunk. Perez opened the van's back doors to reveal a blue ice chest, and, according to Lopez, “pointed to the drugs being in the ice chest.” Martinez asked whether the transaction could be completed in Lopez's nearby hotel room, a question Lopez ignored. When Lopez asked Perez “where exactly it was,” Perez told Lopez that the lining of the ice chest needed to be removed and helped him to remove it. Perez did not look surprised when he removed the lining from the cooler. After doing so, Lopez further testified, Perez took out two packages of methamphetamine, told Lopez that the remaining two packages were on the other side of the liner, and handed a package to Lopez. At Lopez's signal, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents arrested both Perez and Martinez.
DEA agent Patrick Curran testified next. He explained that on May 23, Martinez's black truck drove in and out of a parking lot several times, as though the driver were attempting to determine whether he was being observed. At some point Perez's white van appeared to be “traveling in tandem with the [truck]. I mean, the van was very close to his rear bumper. They followed the same route through the parking lot before the truck had left.” Curran does not appear to have testified, however, that the white van drove in and out of the lot several times. He also acknowledged on cross-examination that although he observed the transaction between Lopez and Martinez on May 20, he did not see Perez on that day.
DEA group supervisor Gilberto Hinojosa followed Curran on the stand. Hinojosa interviewed Perez on May 23. Perez claimed that a neighbor-acquaintance, whom he had known for many years but could not name, asked him to come from Mexico to Texas, pick up a cooler, and deliver that cooler to someone in exchange for $300. Perez said he received a series of phone numbers, which he called for further instruction. Hinojosa felt Perez had “pretended” to be unable to remember the name of the street from which he received the cooler. And he described Perez's story as coming “in layers. [I]nitially he denied knowing anything about it. Then when I brought it to his attention how ridiculous a story that was, then he would add a little bit more and add a bit. Ultimately, the story was—because I asked him.” Finally, Perez disclosed that the methamphetamine likely belonged to Hector Alaniz.
Perez was to pay fifty dollars to the person with the cooler.
Cross examination focused almost entirely on two facts. First, although Hinojosa supervised the investigation, he was unaware of Perez's involvement until the day of the bust. Second, Perez did not admit to knowledge of the drugs prior to the bust, or to participation in other drug activity. Redirect established that total surveillance between May 10 and 23 lasted only about four to eight hours, and that Perez could have met Martinez without Hinojosa's knowledge.
The final favor that Perez did for Alaniz before the bust involved retrieving some documents from Roma, Texas. Perez retrieved the documents on May 9, but was not compensated at that time. Including reimbursement, Perez expected to receive $200–$250 for the errand. On May 23, the day of the bust, the “neighbor” came to his shop and informed him that Alaniz would pay him in Laredo, Texas, for the Roma favor.
On May 10, Perez also brought to Texas the vehicle to which the documents related.
Later that day, while driving to Laredo, Perez called the “neighbor” to ask where he should go to be paid. The “neighbor” told Perez that he had given Perez's number to someone, who would call him. A person named Demetrio called and said that his “cousin” would pay Perez at a warehouse near Mines Road. That “cousin”—whom Perez later learned was Rene Martinez—gave Perez another phone number, which apparently belonged to a “Night Watch[man].” At some point Perez spoke with Alaniz to inquire about who would be paying him. Alaniz informed Perez that he should give the night watchman fifty dollars for an item to be delivered to Martinez. Perez paid the watchman fifty dollars for an “ice chest” and called Martinez, who instructed him to go to The Golden Corral.
Perez testified that he arrived at the Corral before Martinez and did not follow Martinez's vehicle. A man wearing a blue shirt signaled to Perez and indicated where Perez should park. When the man—evidently Lopez—asked Perez whether he had anything for Lopez, Perez informed him that the ice chest was in the back of Perez's van. Perez testified that he did not open the cooler and implied that he did not remove the methamphetamine from the cooler. He was surprised, he added, to see the hidden contents of the cooler.
Perez called two other witnesses, but at the close of trial, he did not renew his motion for a judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Perez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each count of conviction; disputes evidentiary rulings surrounding the prosecution's cross-examination of Perez; argues there was a material variance between the indictment and the evidence proffered at trial; claims the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument; and contests the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines. We consider each argument in turn.
United States v. Dowl, 619 F.3d 494, 500 (5th Cir.2010) (citing United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768, 770 (5th Cir.2003)).
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)).
United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 331 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (emphasis removed) (quoting United States v. Phillips, 477 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir.2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 525, 184 L.Ed.2d 339 (2012).
Id. at 332 (quoting United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir.1998)).
See United States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 256–57 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Fierro, 38 F.3d 761, 768 (5th Cir.1994).
United States v. Robles–Pantoja, 887 F.2d 1250, 1254 (5th Cir.1989) (citations omitted).
Perez's argument focuses on whether evidence demonstrates that he had knowledge of Martinez's agreement with others. It centers on two propositions. First, the government was unaware of Perez's involvement with Martinez until the day of their arrest. Second, Perez was not aware he was transporting methamphetamine.
The record provides a simple explanation for why the government was unaware of Perez's involvement: surveillance was limited. DEA group supervisor Hinojosa testified that surveillance prior to May 23 lasted only about four to eight hours, and that Perez could have communicated with Martinez without Hinojosa's knowledge. Moreover, agent Curran testified that Perez's white van appeared to be “traveling in tandem with [Martinez's black truck].” This suggests collaboration and cooperation. Moreover, Perez admitted that he spoke to Martinez on the phone on May 23, though he contended that their conversationwas innocuous. And as agent Lopez testified, Perez waited at the ready for Martinez to summon him to The Golden Corral.
United States v. Maltos, 985 F.2d 743, 747 (5th Cir.1992).
Perez's possession conviction required proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knowingly possessed fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and intended to distribute it. Perez argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he knew he was delivering drugs, but a reasonable jury could have concluded otherwise. The government presented evidence that Perez indicated that “it” was in the cooler. Perez suggested that they open the cooler elsewhere, indicating that he wanted to keep its contents secret. He showed no surprise when drugs were removed from the lining of the cooler. These facts and others provide sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer knowledge.
See United States v. Olguin, 643 F.3d 384, 394 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 432, 181 L.Ed.2d 281,and cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 439, 181 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011).
Perez next argues that the district court erred by permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine Perez “with financial data.” We review preserved evidentiary objections for abuse of discretion, but will not reverse a conviction because of a harmless error. We review forfeited objections only for plain error.
United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 522 (5th Cir.2004) (citation omitted).
United States v. Thompson, 454 F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir.2006) (citation omitted).
Q[:] Israel, tell me, what do you do for a living?
A[:] I have a business in Nuevo Laredo approximately for the last 17 years, and another one here in Laredo, Texas.
Q[:] And what type of a business is this?
A[:] I repair, I sell, and I install electronic systems or equipment; fix stereos, alarms, lights, communication equipment for vehicles.
Q[:] Do you report your income tax returns here in the U.S.?
Q[:] About how much money did you make in the business in America in 2010?
Q[:] And was it exactly 25 thousand; zero, zero, zero dollars and zero cents?
Q[:] And did you list any business expenses of your business in 2010 on the tax return?
Q[:] Are you aware that your 2009 tax return was also found in your car?
Q[:] And in that, are you aware that in your business income you listed exactly 14 thousand, zero, zero, zero as your income?
A[:] Well, yes; well, I don't remember exactly, but that sounds about like it's in that average.
Q[:] And that check references a payment to yourself of $7,000?
Q[:] And do you know what date you wrote that check?
A[:] Not exactly, but it hadn't been long before [the arrest].
A[:] Yes; it hadn't been long before.
The prosecutor also elicited testimony that Perez worked seven days a week and had about twenty to thirty clients daily.
Rule 611(b) provides that “[c]ross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in the exerciseof discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.” “Implicit in the rule is that all evidence relevant to the subject matter of direct examination is within the scope of cross-examination” and is therefore “admissible” unless otherwise excluded. An inquiry about an action is not outside the scope of cross merely because that action was not discussed on direct examination.
United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 907 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc) (citation omitted). Perez refers to his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. The scope of a Fifth–Amendment waiver should not be determined by the scope of permissible cross-examination; Rule 611(b) expressly authorizes the district court to “permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 611(b)). But “[t]he defendant ... is deemed to waive the privilege, at least with respect to matters about which he testifies.” Id. at 908. Otherwise, the defendant could “testify with impunity on matters he chooses and in a manner he chooses,”—“a ‘positive invitation to mutilate the truth a party offers to tell.’ ” Id. (quoting Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 156, 78 S.Ct. 622, 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958)).
.Fed.R.Evid. 403 (2011) (emphasis added).
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997).
Id. at 184, 117 S.Ct. 644;see also id. at 186, 187, 117 S.Ct. 644.
Cf. id. at 174–76, 117 S.Ct. 644 (defendant charged with being a felon in possession stipulated that he was a felon, sought to exclude evidence concerning prior offense).
Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' character for truthfulness other than conviction of a crime as provided in rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning the witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.... The giving of testimony, whether by an accused or by any other witness, does not operate as a waiver of the accused's or the witness' privilege against self-incrimination when examined with respect to matters that related only to character for truthfulness.
Perez argues that cross-examination about “ordinary tax returns, deposit slips, and bank statements” was an improper attack on his character. We disagree. The financial documents were not aimed at establishing that Perez is the type of person who lies. Instead, they go to whether the testimony that Perez provided was itself untruthful. There is no error here.
United States v. McCullough, 631 F.3d 783, 793 (5th Cir.2011).
United States v. Delgado, 401 F.3d 290, 295 (5th Cir.2005) (citations omitted).
United States v. Robinson, 974 F.2d 575, 578 (5th Cir.1992) (citations omitted).
[I]t's all circumstantial evidence. But take a look at his tax returns. He's self employed, ladies and gentlemen, and his tax return in 2010 shows $25,000 even, with no business expenses, 2–5–0–0–0.
This is not a plain variance. Perez testified that he was a legitimate businessperson duped by Alaniz and his associates. The prosecutor's argument that the testimony was not credible—that he was not duped—is not an argument that general involvement in the drug trade is sufficient to convict.
This is so notwithstanding the fact that the district court admitted certain documents in evidence.
Perez's reliance on United States v. Adams is misplaced. Adams purchased a handgun. Doing so required him to fill out a form that requested several pieces of information, including his name and residence. Federal law prohibited presenting false identification in connection with a purchase, and separately prohibited making a false statement in connection with a purchase. The indictment focused on Adams's use of an ID listing his last name as Cole, and on Adams's statement that he was Cole—that is, it focused on his identity. At trial, however, the government's theory of the case was that, in addition to a false name, his ID and statement were also false with respect to his residence. The court's instruction to the jury referenced both the address and the name issues. The defendant objected, explaining, “[m]y theory is that a mailing address and identity are two different things. And they're charging him with using a false identity, and might convict him with using a false mailing address.” This Court agreed with that concern, found that the indictment had been constructively amended, and reversed.
.778 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir.1985).
By contrast, here, the government did not argue to the jury a separate crime not charged in the indictment, and the court's instructions did not suggest that the jury could convict on such a ground. In any event, unlike the Adams constructive amendment (then subject to automatic reversal), even a preserved objection to an alleged variance is immaterial without prejudice. On plain-error review, the burden of demonstrating prejudice falls to the defendant, who has not satisfied it here.
See Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. There is no contention that a material variance is an error for which prejudice need not be shown.
United States v. Fields, 72 F.3d 1200, 1207 (5th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). The latter inquiry turns on “ the magnitude of the prejudicial effect of the statements,” which is “tested by looking at the prosecutor's remarks in the context of the trial in which they were made and attempting to elucidate their intended effect;” “ the efficacy of any cautionary instruction given; and  the strength of the evidence of the defendant's guilt.” Id.
United States v. Brown, 887 F.2d 537, 542 (5th Cir.1989) (citation omitted).
I submit to you that if you believe his story then let him go. If you really believe that, if you really believe this story, let him go. But you don't have to believe that story ... and I submit to you that you should not believe it and here's some reasons why you should not believe what he tells you.
First of all, there's—it's all circumstantial evidence. But take a look at his tax returns. He's self employed, ladies and gentlemen, and his tax return in 2010 shows $25,000 even, with no business expenses, 2–5–0–0–0.
Now if you're salaried and you work for somebody else you might reasonably have a salary of $25,000 but it would be an incredible coincidence if you have 15 to 20 customers a day and on typical transactions your profit is [$]15 to $20 or your labor cost is [$]15 to $20, plus the cost of stereo equipment, that it would just all add up at the end of 2010 exactly 25,000. But that's what he told you.
And if you'll down on the Schedule C in the 2009 one, it turns out to be exactly 14,000. 14,000 even. It's unbelievable two years that that happened for a self-employed man.
Perez contends that the prosecutor treated the financial documents as substantive evidence of guilt, rather than impeachment evidence, and “made himself an unsworn witness about ‘incredible coincidences.’ ” We disagree.
The first argument lacks force. Perez's testimony suggested his innocence. The documents suggested that the testimony was untruthful. Thus, the documents provided some evidence of Perez's guilt. Even if the prosecutor committed plain misconduct, we perceive no effect on Perez's substantial rights. The prosecutor could have said “these documents suggest that Perez's exculpatory testimony was false.” Perez has not demonstrated that instead using the phrase “circumstantial evidence” was prejudicial.
There is no suggestion that this sort of statement, if error, would be an error for which no prejudice need be shown.
Cf. United States v. Morris, 568 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir.1978) (“[A]n attorney may properly state, ‘I believe that the evidence has shown the defendant's guilt.’ ” (citation omitted)); cf. also id. at 400 n. 1.
See United States v. McCann, 613 F.3d 486, 495 (5th Cir.2010) (“The test for improper vouching for the credibility of a witness is ‘whether the prosecutor's expression might reasonably lead the jury to believe that there is other evidence, unknown or unavailable to the jury, on which the prosecutor was convinced of the accused's guilt.’ ” (citation omitted)).
[The idea that there is no conspiracy] doesn't really make any sense if you look at it from any other angle either because the other view would be—because how would it that all those people except our defendant know that? So that's what you have to think about.
So when we're talking about what did the defendant know, you know, the government doesn't have a brain scan of the defendant. That's impossible. That doesn't—that wouldn't tell us and he has no MRI. So the only way you can determine if this defendant, ladies and gentlemen, knew about the methamphetamine in the cooler is to look at all the other facts and circumstances and use your commonsense because that at the end of the day is all that can be done in a criminal trial like this.
Perez contends that the prosecutor “clearly intended to burden shift by stating that ... Perez[ ] ‘has no MRI’ rather than stating that the Government failed to produce such evidence.” We view the prosecutor's comment differently. First, the comment amounts to a statement that there is no MRI: the prosecutor did not simply say “he has no MRI,” he also stated that “the government doesn't have a brain scan of the defendant.” The clear import of his statements is that the jury would need to make its determination based on “all the other facts and circumstances and use [its] commonsense.” Second, the prosecutor did not fault the defendant for failing to produce an MRI; in the quoted excerpt, the prosecutor acknowledges that a brain scan “wouldn't tell us anything”—suggesting that any MRI would be unimportant.
By the way, this person is also sophisticated about what in the world is going on in our community. He indicated yes, he knows there's a drug trade. He has read the news. He sees it on TV. He crosses the bridge all the time. The dogs have actually been in his vehicle before searching his car. He's well aware that this is a big deal in Laredo, Texas and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas.
This argument is without merit. The clear import of the prosecutor's argument is that Perez knew of drug trafficking in Laredo, but purported to have no suspicion of drug activity when led by a series of mysterious callers to the side of a road to pay a watchman fifty dollars for a cooler. There is no misconduct here. And even considered cumulatively, any misconduct was not prejudicial.
See, e.g., United States v. Duffaut, 314 F.3d 203, 211 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. Brown, 887 F.2d 537, 542 (5th Cir.1989).
United States v. Delgado–Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751 (5th Cir.2009) (citation omitted).
United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir.2005) (footnote and citation omitted).
United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 92–94, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993) (citation omitted); see alsoU.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. 4(B).
Dunnigan, 507 U.S. at 94, 113 S.Ct. 1111;see also id. at 94–95, 113 S.Ct. 1111.
Because the fact of a conviction does not imply that a testifying defendant committed perjury, “if a defendant objects to a sentence enhancement resulting from her trial testimony, a district court must review the evidence and make independent findings necessary to establish a willful impediment to or obstruction of justice, or an attempt to do the same, under the perjury definition” set out above. “Simply basing the enhancement on the jury's verdict is improper.” But while “it is preferable for a district court to address each element of the alleged perjury in a separate and clear finding,” it is enough for the court to “make [ ] a finding of an obstruction of, or impediment to, justice that encompasses all of the factual predicates for a finding of perjury.” The sentencing court need not expressly find that the false testimony concerned a material matter; it is enough that materiality is “obvious[ ].” Finally, the sentencing court need not make factual findings on its own; it is sufficient for the court to adopt adequate findings in a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR).
Id. at 95, 113 S.Ct. 1111 (citations omitted).
United States v. Ricardo, 472 F.3d 277, 285 (5th Cir.2006) (citations omitted).
Dunnigan, 507 U.S. at 95, 113 S.Ct. 1111.
United States v. Cabral–Castillo, 35 F.3d 182, 187 (5th Cir.1994); see also United States v. Como, 53 F.3d 87, 91 (5th Cir.1995).
See United States v. Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1309 (5th Cir.1993).
It is one of the, perhaps, anomalies or strange consequences for a person who maintains their innocence, proceeds to trial, exercises their right to take the stand and to defend themselves of the accusation against them that once they're convicted, after the trier of fact, in this case the jury, rejects their defense and finds the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime that they stood accused of and went to trial on that you are then faced with the guideline enhancement for obstruction of justice on the basis that when you take the stand and simply deny your—your participation in any illegal activity, in this case narcotic trafficking, a simple denial in my interpretation of the guidelines—in cases of interpreting the guidelines, a simple denial would not justify an adjustment for obstruction of justice.
In this particular case if the simple denial is accompanied by intricate testimony that doesn't result from confusion, mistake, faulty memory but testimony that the trier of fact hears and rejects, the question then becomes was that testimony a simple denial or was it more to the level of being a willful attempt to obstruct justice or impede the administration of justice.
Although the sentencing judge did not preside over Perez's trial, he reviewed and expressly relied on the PSR's summary of Perez's testimony. The court specifically drew attention to the fact that “the defendant claimed he never knew there was methamphetamine,” among other obviously material statements. Because materiality is obvious, the question is whether the district court's findings encompassed the finding that Perez willfully made a false statement.
.U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The defendant has the burden of establishing his role by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Posada–Rios, 158 F.3d 832, 880 (5th Cir.1998) (citation omitted).
United States v. Turincio, 78 Fed.Appx. 344, 347 (5th Cir.2003) (per curiam).
See United States v. Martinez–Larraga, 517 F.3d 258, 272 (5th Cir.2008) (citation omitted).
“Section 3B1.2 does not contemplate that the participation level is to be evaluated in reference to the entire criminal enterprise of which Defendant is a part.” “Instead, [ § ] 3B1.2 asks whether a defendant's involvement is comparable to that of an ‘average participant.’ ” Whether someone was an “average participant” is to be determined in light of the conduct for which the defendant is held responsible. Thus, the question is whether the district court clearly erred in determining that Perez was not a minor participant in the conspiracy concerning four pounds of methamphetamine.
United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir.2001) (citation omitted).
Id. (quoting United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.1989)).
See, e.g., id. at 598–99;United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir.1995) (per curiam).
If Perez was not a minor participant in the conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, he was not a minor participant in the possession with intent to distribute count.
Perez argues that his “fleeting conduct in picking up a cooler and driving it to the location directed was so attenuated compared to the weeks-long surveillance [of] Martinez” that a reduction was required. That Perez was not observed by DEA agents has little bearing on his role in the conspiracy. Martinez may have been more involved than Perez, but that does not establish that Perez was “peripheral to the advancement of the criminal activity” or less culpable than, e.g., Demetrio or the night watchman.
Moreover, the addendum to the PSR, which the district court adopted, found that “[a]lthough it is unclear the exact role the defendant played in this offense, it is clear that he picked up the methamphetamine and transported it in a concealed fashion within an ice cooler. This defendant then aided the undercover agent in dismantling the cooler and exposing the narcotic.” The methamphetamine that he transported was all of the methamphetamine at issue; Perez was not held accountable, for example, for drugs with which he had no personal involvement. Given the facts supporting Perez's conviction, the district court did not clearly err in determining that he was not a minor participant. The cases on which Perez relies are inapposite.
Cf. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d at 138 (“A courier who willingly undertakes illegal transit without asking many questions is especially valuable to a criminal organization.”).
Cf. Garcia, 242 F.3d at 598–99.
See United States v. Hunte, 196 F.3d 687, 694 (7th Cir.1999) (“Hunte helped hide the groups activities by closing the blinds, and registered for a motel room, but she was in no sense a courier nor did she help load or unload the drugs. She provided nothing ‘necessary’ or ‘essential’ to the operation.” (emphasis added)); United States v. Neils, 156 F.3d 382, 384 (2d Cir.1998) (holding that district court erred in categorically determining that someone who played a particular role could not be a minor participant and explaining that a factual determination was necessary); United States v. Green, 152 F.3d 1202, 1205–06 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that district court did not clearly err in granting reduction, though it was a close question); United States v. Durham, 139 F.3d 1325, 1336 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that district court did not clearly err in granting reduction).
Perez transported four pounds of methamphetamine that was secreted within a cooler. A jury reasonably found that he conspired to distribute the drugs, and the government permissibly used financial documents to undermine his alibi. Because he was not a minor participant in the conspiracy and obstructed justice when he testified, we AFFIRM.

References: v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.