Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-20
Citations: 111 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 03-40809
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 315–316

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-40809.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 20, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Juan E. Gonzalez, Weslaco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ray Perez appeals the sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for possessing 470 kilograms of cocaine with the intent to distribute. He contends that the district court should have awarded him a two-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). He has not established that the district court clearly erred in denying the reduction because he has not shown that he was "substantially less culpable than the average participant." United States v. Lokey, 945 F.2d 825, 840 (5th Cir.1991); United States v. Gallegos, 868 F.2d 711, 713 (5th Cir.1989).
Perez also complains about the district court's consideration of the Government's motion for a downward departure based upon Perez's substantial assistance, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. To the extent Perez asserts that he was not awarded a departure, he is incorrect. To the extent that Perez is arguing that the 55-month reduction he received was insufficient, he has not established that the district court abused its discretion in the extent of the departure. See United, States v. Bell, 371 F.3d 239, 243 (5th Cir.2004), cert. denied (U.S. Oct. 4, 2004) (No. 04-5954). The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.