IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41030
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE LUIS RAMOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(L-01-CR-451-ALL)
--------------------
June 14, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Jose Luis Ramos appeals his sentence,
which was assessed after he was convicted of possession with intent
to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine. Ramos
contends that the district court erred in denying him an offense
level reduction pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines
(U.S.S.G.) § 3B1.2 for his role in the offense. He argues that the
district court applied its de facto policy of refusing the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
reduction to drug couriers, and that, in ruling on the reduction,
the court failed to consider the Sentencing Commission’s 2001
amendment to the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.
We review for clear error the sentencing court’s determination
that a defendant did not play a minor role in an offense. United4
States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir. 1994). Here, the
district court found that Ramos played an important role in the
distribution of the cocaine when he attempted to transport a large
quantity of the drug through the border patrol checkpoint. These
factual findings, which were specific to Ramos’s offense, are not
clearly erroneous under either the 2000 or 2001 commentary to
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See United States v. Marmolejo, 106 F.3d 1213,
1217 (5th Cir. 1997); U.S.S.G. Suppl. to App. C amend. 635; United
States v. Rodriquez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 940-44 (11th Cir.
1999).
Ramos also asserts that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is facially
unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
(2000). As Ramos concedes, however, his argument is foreclosed by
circuit precedent. See United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580,
582 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied., 532 U.S. 1045 (2001). For the
foregoing reasons, the sentence imposed by the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2