Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-25
Citations: 88 F. App'x 619
Docket Number: No. 03-4789
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricardo SANCHEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 619–619

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricardo SANCHEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-4789.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 19, 2004.
Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
David O. Schles, Stowers & Associates, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, R. Booth Goodwin II, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2000).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ricardo Sanchez entered a guilty plea to membership in a conspiracy to steal goods moving as an interstate shipment of freight, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000). He was sentenced to thirty-seven months incarceration, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Sanchez appeals.
On appeal, Sanchez argues he had a minimal or minor role in the conspiracy, and at sentencing the district court should, therefore, have reduced his offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 (2003). We review the district court's factual determinations for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 201 (4th Cir.1999). Sanchez's claim is meritless. Sanchez fails to establish he was a minimal or minor participant in the conspiracy. USSG § 3B1.2.
Accordingly, we affirm Sanchez's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED