Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Daniel JUAREZ-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-22
Citations: 233 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 06-51496
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Daniel JUAREZ-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARWOOD, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 233
Pages: 406–407

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Daniel JUAREZ-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-51496
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Francisco Federico Macias, The Law Office of Francisco F. Macias, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARWOOD, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eric Daniel Juarez-Gutierrez was convicted of one charge of conspiring to possess marihuana with intent to distribute and in October 2006 was sentenced to serve 18 months in prison. He appeals his sentence and argues that the district court erred by denying his request for an adjustment to his offense level based on his allegedly minor role in the offense. Such an adjustment would have reduced the advisory guideline confinement range of 18 to 24 months to 12 to 18 months.
Juarez-Gutierrez has not shown that the district court clearly erred by denying the requested adjustment. See United States v. Deavours, 219 F.3d 400, 404 (5th Cir.2000). Juarez-Gutierrez's argument that he was entitled to the adjustment because he was a mere courier is unavailing. See United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456, 1485 (5th Cir.1993).
We note that Juarez-Gutierrez was to drive the vehicle with the some 21.8 kilograms of marihuana concealed therein from Mexico to Denver and he recruited a co-conspirator to accompany him, along with her 11 year old daughter, and agreed to pay her $1,000 out of the $5,000 he was to be paid.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.