United States v. Martinez ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-40311     Document: 00516153795         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/04/2022
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    January 4, 2022
    No. 21-40311
    Summary Calendar                  Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Martin Martinez,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 7:19-CR-510-1
    Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Smith and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Martin Martinez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute
    500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced
    Martinez to 262 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised
    release.
    *
    Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
    Case: 21-40311      Document: 00516153795           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/04/2022
    No. 21-40311
    Martinez’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred in
    refusing to award a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The
    district court’s denial of a reduction for a mitigating role is a factual
    determination that is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Villanueva,
    
    408 F.3d 193
    , 203 (5th Cir. 2005).
    Martinez does not challenge any of the factual findings contained in
    the Presentence Report defining the offense conduct. Martinez argues that
    he was not the owner of the narcotics, did not plan the importation of the
    narcotics, and did not control others, but fortuitously came across the
    narcotics and kept them. He does not argue that his role was peripheral to
    the distribution of the methamphetamine; rather, he argues simply that he
    did less than others. This is insufficient to warrant a § 3B1.2 mitigating role
    adjustment. See United States v. Castro, 
    843 F.3d 608
    , 613-14 (5th Cir. 2016).
    The district court did not clearly err in refusing to grant him a mitigating role
    adjustment. See Villanueva, 
    408 F.3d at 203
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-40311

Filed Date: 1/4/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/5/2022