Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amanda OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-24
Citations: 202 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 05-41643
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amanda OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 816–817

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amanda OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41643
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Yzaguirre & Chapa, McAllen, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Amanda Ochoa appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. She argues that the district court clearly erred by not granting her a reduction in her offense level for being a minor or minimal participant under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because she was merely a drug courier.
Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we continue to review "a district court's interpretation and application of the Guidelines in the same manner as we did pre-Booker." United States v. Ville-gas, 404 F.3d 355, 362 n. 7 (5th Cir.2005). A district court's determination of a defendant's role in the offense is a factual finding that we review for clear error. United States v. Deavours, 219 F.3d 400, 404 (5th Cir.2000).
Ochoa admitted that she and her co-defendant were to receive a substantial amount of money for transporting a large quantity of drugs. Under these circumstances, the district court did not clearly err by refusing to grant Ochoa a reduction as a minor or minimal participant. See United States v. Leal-Mendoza, 281 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir.2002).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.