IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20049
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS EDUARDO ESPINOSA-OSSA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-555-1
--------------------
September 23, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Luis Eduardo Espinosa-Ossa appeals his sentence following
his guilty-plea conviction of one count of possession of one
kilogram or more of heroin with intent to distribute. He argues
that the district court committed reversible error in denying his
request for a downward adjustment to his offense level based on
his allegedly minor role in the offense of conviction pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He contends that the district court erred in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-20049
-2-
basing its denial of his request for this adjustment on the mere
fact that he had a prior conviction for a similar offense.
A district court’s determination of a defendant’s role in
the offense is a factual finding that this court reviews for
clear error. United States v. Deavours, 219 F.3d 400, 404 (5th
Cir. 2000). Further, the district court’s refusal to grant a
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 reduction is entitled to great deference.
United States v. Devine, 934 F.2d 1325, 1340 (5th Cir. 1991).
The district court based its decision to deny this request
on its determination that Espinosa-Ossa was a particularly
sophisticated courier who played an integral part in the
operation. Espinosa-Ossa has not shown that the district court
clearly erred in making this determination and denying his
request for a U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2;
see also United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 446-47 (5th Cir.
2001); United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456, 1485 (5th Cir.
1993). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.