Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Paul PATRON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-27
Citations: 12 F. App'x 783
Docket Number: No. 00-4189
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Paul PATRON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 12
Pages: 783–784

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Paul PATRON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-4189.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 27, 2001.
Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
McKAY, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(f). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument.
Defendant, the driver of a car containing 2.2 kilograms of methamphetamine, appeals his sentence, challenging the trial court's refusal to depart downward for minimal participation in a drug distribution scheme, or, in the alternative, to depart downward for minor participation. He likewise challenges the court's refusal to depart downward for aberrant behavior.
The trial court's finding that Defendant presented no evidence from which to compare his level of participation is not clearly erroneous. Courier status, standing alone, does not mandate reduction for either minimal or minor participation. United States v. Ballard, 16 F.3d 1110, 1115 (10th Cir.1994).
The trial court clearly recognized its discretion to depart for aberrant behavior. It concluded that the facts did not support such a departure. It is settled that, absent an erroneous legal conclusion that it lacked discretion, the trial court's refusal to depart is not subject to review on appeal. United States v. Pearson, 203 F.3d 1243, 1276 (10th Cir.2000).
Finding no error, we AFFIRM Defendant's conviction and sentence.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.