Court Opinion

ID: 9891586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 00:00:31.727315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:43:27.384681
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40102        Document: 00516936123             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/18/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                 October 18, 2023
                                      No. 23-40102
                                    Summary Calendar                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                          Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Miriam Nayely Lopez-Hernandez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:21-CR-805-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         After she was apprehended driving a vehicle laden with drugs over the
   U.S.-Mexico       border,     Defendant-Appellant         Miriam      Nayely       Lopez-
   Hernandez pleaded guilty to importing into the United States approximately
   51 kilograms of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
   methamphetamine. Her sole contention on appeal is that the district court

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40102         Document: 00516936123               Page: 2      Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                          No. 23-40102

   erred in refusing to award her a mitigating-role downward adjustment.
   Lopez-Hernandez preserved that contention through an objection to the
   Presentence Report (“PSR”). See United States v. Odom, 694 F.3d 544, 546
   (5th Cir. 2012). Our review of whether Lopez-Hernandez was a minor or
   minimal participant is a factual determination reviewed for clear error. United
   States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir. 2005). A finding is not clearly
   erroneous if it is “plausible in light of the record read as a whole.” Id.
           A defendant is entitled to a downward adjustment under the
   Sentencing Guidelines if he or she “play[ed] a part in committing the offense
   that makes his [or her] substantially less culpable than the average participant
   in the criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). Lopez-Hernandez
   insists that she was the least culpable person in the trafficking scheme and
   that she should receive such an adjustment. However, Lopez-Hernandez has
   the burden of showing that she was less culpable than the average participant,
   not that she was simply less involved than others. See United States v. Castro,
   843 F.3d 608, 613 (5th Cir. 2016). Before the district court, she only identified
   one other participant, the purported leader of the trafficking organization.
   The district court determined that, while the leader participated in the
   criminal activity at a “higher level” than Lopez-Hernandez, she was an
   average participant, and the leader’s participation was above average.1 These
   findings are not clearly erroneous, and the district court’s denial of the
   mitigating role adjustment is consistent with the facts before it.
           AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           1
              The government indicated that it was aware of “a few” other individuals involved
   in the criminal enterprise, but their roles and relative levels of culpability were never made
   clear to the district court. And it was Lopez-Hernandez’s burden to establish the culpability
   of the average participant. Castro, 843 F.3d at 613. However, she did not do so.

                                                 2