eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2009-02

United States v. Guzman-Arias , 312 F. App'x 628 ( 2009 )


Menu:
 
  •           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 26, 2009
No. 08-50515
Summary Calendar               Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JAIME GUZMAN-ARIAS
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:07-CR-3248-ALL
Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jaime Guzman-Arias (Guzman) was convicted of one count of importing
cocaine into the United States and one count of possessing cocaine with intent
to distribute. The district court sentenced him to serve concurrent 121-month
terms of imprisonment. Guzman now appeals his sentence. He argues that the
district court erred by rejecting his argument that he was a minor participant
in the offense and by denying him a two-level adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G.
*
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 08-50515
§ 3B1.2.
Guzman was not entitled to the minor participant adjustment simply
because his role in the offense was limited to transporting drugs. See United
States v. Edwards,
    65 F.3d 430
    , 434 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Pofahl,
    990 F.2d 1456
    , 1485 (5th Cir. 1993). Rather, such a role is “an indispensable part”
of drug related offenses. See United States v. Buenrostro,
    868 F.2d 135
    , 138 (5th
Cir. 1989).
The district court determined that the cocaine transported by Guzman was
a dangerous drug and that the value of the contraband would be substantially
increased by its transportation farther into the United States. The district
court’s determination concerning Guzman’s role in the offense is plausible in
light of the entire record and thus is not clearly erroneous. See United States v.
Villanueva,
    408 F.3d 193
    , 203 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gallegos,
    868 F.2d 711
    , 713 (5th Cir. 1989).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2