Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco ORTEGA-RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-31
Citations: 264 F. App'x 369
Docket Number: No. 07-50471
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco ORTEGA-RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 264
Pages: 369–369

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco ORTEGA-RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50471
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 31, 2008.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Ortega-Rubio (Ortega) appeals his 27-month sentence following his guilty plea to importation of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He argues that the district court clearly erred in denying him a minor-role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court's finding that Ortega was not a minor participant was plausible in light of the record as a whole and, thus, not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203-04 (5th Cir.2005).
Ortega also contends that his sentence was unreasonable on various grounds. Ortega did not preserve this issue; thus, review is for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 392 (5th Cir.2007). Ortega identifies no plain error. Thus, Ortega has failed to show that his sentence is unreasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006); Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594-95, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462,168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). The judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.