Court Opinion

ID: 9408252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 00:00:38.64377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.968104
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50714        Document: 00516816694             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/11/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50714
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                                 July 11, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jaime Pando,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:22-CR-69-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jaime Pando appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent
   to distribute, and distribute, five grams or more of methamphetamine
   (“meth”). Finding no error, we affirm.
         Pando maintains that the district court erred by refusing a mitigating-
   role adjustment even though he acted as a minor participant for purposes of
   U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Pando contends that during the time of his arrest, a co-
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50714      Document: 00516816694           Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/11/2023

                                     No. 22-50714

   conspirator gave him the meth to attempt to distance himself from the
   offense conduct. Pando states that the drug operation was relatively small
   and that his actions were dissimilar compared to those of other participants.
   Pando avers he was not the source of the meth, nor did he receive a larger
   share of the drug proceeds. He also posits that he is not the mastermind of
   the conspiracy and did not perform tasks crucial to the success of the
   enterprise.
          Whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant is a factual
   determination reviewed for clear error.          United States v. Gomez-Valle,
   828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “A factual finding is
   not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record read as a whole.”
   Id. “[W]hen a sentence is based on an activity in which a defendant was
   actually involved, § 3B1.2 does not require a reduction in the base offense
   level even though the defendant’s activity in a larger conspiracy may have
   been minor or minimal.” United States v. Stanford, 823 F.3d 814, 852 (5th
   Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
          The record shows Pando was sentenced based only on the activity in
   which he was involved, specifically the quantity of meth found on him at the
   arrest and that he admitted having sold and purchased. Although Pando
   alleged the meth belonged to a co-conspirator, he failed to provide evidence
   rebutting the presentence report’s contrary conclusion. See United States v.
   Taylor, 277 F.3d 721, 725–27 (5th Cir. 2001). In addition, Pando does not
   point to evidence indicating the roles of his co-conspirators or showing that
   his role was limited to transportation and storage. Therefore, the district
   court did not clearly err in denying Pando a mitigating role. See United States
   v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203, 209–10 (5th Cir. 2016).
          AFFIRMED.

                                              2