United States v. Jarvis , 203 F. App'x 586 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50974
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM FREDERICK JARVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CR-2644-ALL
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Frederick Jarvis appeals his sentence following his
guilty-plea conviction for importation of 50 kilograms or more of
marijuana and for possession with intent to distribute 50
kilograms or more of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841,
952, and 960. He argues that the district court clearly erred in
denying him a minor role adjustment to his offense level under
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Jarvis contends that he was a mere courier who
was substantially less culpable than other participants in the
offense.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-50974
-2-
We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing
Guidelines de novo and review factual findings for clear error.
See United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005);
United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 268 (2005). Pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.2, a district court may decrease a defendant’s offense
level by two levels if the defendant was a minor participant. An
adjustment for a minor role applies to a defendant “who is less
culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not
be described as minimal.” § 3B1.2, comment. (n.5).
The district court did not clearly err in denying Jarvis a
minor role adjustment. See United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196,
199 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135,
137-38 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Nevarez-Arreola, 885
F.2d 243, 245 (5th Cir. 1989). The district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.