United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 23, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41313
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RENALDO NEMIAH RENFRO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:01-CR-199-2
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Renaldo Nemiah Renfro appeals his sentence following his
guilty-plea conviction of one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute less than 100 grams of phencyclidine
("PCP"). He argues that the district court erred in denying his
request for a downward adjustment to his offense level based on
his minor role in the offense of conviction pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.2.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41313
-2-
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).
Renfro was driving the vehicle in which the PCP was found
with his two co-defendants as passengers. He admitted being
present when the drugs were purchased in Houston and knew the PCP
was in the vehicle, which he was transporting to Beaumont. He
also admitted that all three men had been smoking marijuana, and
he gave a false name to police when they stopped the vehicle.
Finally, police recorded a conversation among the three men
discussing the fact that one of them should take responsibility
for all the drugs. The district court was not bound by Renfro's
self-serving statements about his role in the offense. See
United States v. Brown, 54 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 1995). Renfro
failed to show that he was substantially less culpable than the
average participant. The denial of a minor role adjustment was
not clear error. See United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 598
(5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.