Court Opinion

ID: 9379219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 00:00:29.872244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.486476
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40355        Document: 00516676859             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/14/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                    FILED
                                                                                March 14, 2023
                                      No. 22-40355
                                    Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
                                    ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Karla Jessica Perez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 2:21-CR-644-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Karla Jessica Perez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent
   to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21
   U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and she was sentenced below the advisory guidelines
   range to 70 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
   She appeals her sentence, arguing that the district court clearly erred by

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40355     Document: 00516676859         Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/14/2023

   denying her a two-level minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Perez
   alleges that a two-level reduction was warranted because her involvement in
   the overall conspiracy was minor. She points to the fact that there was no
   evidence that she directly benefited financially or that she was essential or
   indispensable to the wider conspiracy.
          Because Perez preserved her arguments by raising them in the district
   court, we review “the district court’s interpretation and application of the
   Sentencing Guidelines de novo” and its “findings of fact and its application
   of the Sentencing Guidelines to those findings of fact . . . for clear error.”
   United States v. Cedillo–Narvaez, 761 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2014). Whether
   a defendant is a minor participant under § 3B1.2 is a factual question
   reviewed for clear error. United States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th
   Cir. 2016).
          While Perez did not receive any direct financial benefit from the
   transaction, the district court could plausibly find that Perez’s conduct was
   not peripheral to the advancement of the illegal activity and did not warrant
   a reduction. See id. Perez knew she was transporting illegal drugs across the
   border. Moreover, transporting the methamphetamine and communicating
   with and participating in money transfers with known methamphetamine
   suppliers are not peripheral activities. While Perez’s actions may have been
   peripheral to the overarching drug conspiracy, they were not peripheral to
   these particular transactions, and she was only sentenced for participating in
   those transactions. See United States v. Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d 260, 264 (5th
   Cir. 2017). The district court did not clearly err by denying Perez a
   § 3B1.2(b) role reduction. United States v. Anchundia-Espinoza, 897 F.3d
   629, 634 (5th Cir. 2018); Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d at 264-65; Gomez-Valle, 828
   F.3d at 329.
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.