IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21040
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS CAMPOS-ROLON, also known as Carlos Campos,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-661-3
--------------------
June 19, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Campos-Rolon (Campos) appeals his sentence following
his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting the
transporting and moving of illegal aliens within the United
States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 18
U.S.C. § 2. Campos argues that the district court erred in
denying him a three-level reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-21040
-2-
§ 2L1.1(b)(1) because the Government failed to prove that he
personally profited from his involvement in the offense.
Campos’ argument that he is entitled to a U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.1(b)(1) reduction appears to be based on a prior version of
that guideline. See United States v. Krcic, 186 F.3d 178, 181-82
& n.4 (2nd Cir. 1999)(interpreting 1996 version of U.S.S.G.
§ 2L1.1(b)(1) which provided for a reduction “[i]f the defendant
committed the offense other than for profit”). In 1997, the
language was changed to provide that the reduction applied if
“the offense was committed other than for profit.” U.S.S.G.,
App. C, amend. 561 (emphasis added).
The information contained in the presentence report clearly
demonstrated that Campos aided and abetted co-defendant, Enrique
Garces-Carmona, in a profit-making alien-smuggling operation and
that Campos jointly undertook that operation. See U.S.S.G.
§§ 1B1.1, comment. (n.1) (defining “offense”); 1B1.3 (defining
“relevant conduct”). Campos has failed to show that the district
court’s finding that the offense was profit motivated was clearly
erroneous and has failed to satisfy his burden of proving his
entitlement to a U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(1) reduction. United States
v. Cuellar-Flores, 891 F.2d 92, 93 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly,
the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.