United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 3, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20156
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROSA MAIGUALIDA MARANA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-03-CR-333-1
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Rosa Maigualida Marana appeals her guilty-plea conviction and
sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroine and
importation of heroin. Marana argues that the district court
clearly erred in refusing to grant her request for a two-level
“minor role” reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). She argues that
the evidence showed that she was merely a courier and that a
“recruiter” was responsible for her conduct.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-20156
-2-
The district court’s refusal to grant Marana a two-level
reduction for being a minor participant was not clearly erroneous.
See United States v. Virgen-Moreno, 265 F.3d 276, 296 (5th Cir.
2001). The large quantity of heroin that Marana was transporting
strongly supports the denial of a reduction for being a minor
participant. See United States v. Rojas, 868 F.2d 1409, 1409-10
(5th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, the district court was not required
to accept Marana’s account of her role in the drug trafficking
scheme. See United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th
Cir. 1989). Lastly, this court has held that “couriers are an
indispensable part of drug dealing networks.” Id.
For the first time on appeal, Marana maintains that the
sentencing schemes of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 are unconstitutional
in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).
As Marana concedes, her argument is foreclosed by this court’s
decision in United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir.
2000). She raises the issue only to preserve it for possible
further review.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.