Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eddy WILKINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-19
Citations: 283 F. App'x 197
Docket Number: No. 07-50865
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eddy WILKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 197–198

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eddy WILKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50865
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 19, 2008.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eddy Wilkins appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction of importation of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Wilkins argues that the district court clearly erred in denying him a two-level minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He contends that the adjustment was warranted because he was a mere courier who was less culpable than other participants in the offense.
Whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant is a factual determination that is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2005). Pursuant to § 3B1.2, a district court may decrease a defendant's offense level by two levels if the defendant was a minor participant. An adjustment for a minor role applies to a defendant "who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal." § 3B1.2, comment, (n.5).
The district court did not clearly err in denying Wilkins a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Nevarez-Arreola, 885 F.2d 243, 245 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.1989).
Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.