[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 18, 2006
No. 05-17197 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00607-CR-T-17-MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CORNELIO VALDELAMAR BARRIOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(October 18, 2006)
Before DUBINA, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Cornelio Valdelamar Barrios appeals his sentence of 135 months of
imprisonment for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute
five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States. 46 U.S.C. App. §§ 1903(a), (g), (j); 21 U.S.C.
§ 960(b)(1)(B)(ii). Barrios argues that the district court clearly erred during
sentencing when it denied him a minor-role reduction and that his sentence is
unreasonable. We affirm.
We review the application of the Sentencing Guidelines by the district court
de novo and review findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Crawford, 407
F.3d 1174, 1177-78 (11th Cir. 2005). We review sentences for reasonableness.
United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 2006).
The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level reduction for a minor role
for a defendant “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role
could not be described as minimal.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.5. Whether a
defendant is a minor participant is based on the criminal conduct for which the
defendant is held responsible. United States v. Rodriguez DeVaron, 175 F.3d 930,
940 (11th Cir. 1999). In a drug offense, the court may not consider the “greater
drug conspiracy” but only the conduct that determined the defendant’s base offense
level. Id. at 942. “[W]hen a drug courier’s relevant conduct is limited to [his] own
act of importation, a district court may legitimately conclude that the courier
2
played an important or essential role in the importation of those drugs.” Id. at
942-43. Similarly, the defendant’s culpability is determined by comparison with
other participants in the relevant conduct. Id. at 944.
Barrios argues that he is entitled to a minor role reduction because he was
only a crew member on the boat, was paid little in comparison to the value of the
drugs, and was one part of the larger conspiracy. These arguments fail. Barrios
and five codefendants were arrested as they attempted to transport approximately
1850 kilograms of cocaine, and Barrios’s relevant conduct was limited to that
cargo. Because Barrios did not present evidence that he was less culpable than his
codefendants with regard to the conduct for which he was held responsible, the
district court did not clearly err when it denied the reduction.
We also conclude that Barrios’s sentence is reasonable. “We are required
‘to determine whether the sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable in
the context of the factors outlined in [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)].’” Id. (quoting United
States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th Cir. 2005)). Review for
reasonableness is deferential, United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.
2005), and “when the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory
Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” Id.
Although Barrios argues that the district court did not address the factors in
3
section 3553(a) when it imposed his sentence, the transcript of the sentencing
hearing reflects that the district court did consider the section 3553 factors and
determined that the sentence imposed was sufficient but not greater than necessary
for purposes of sentencing. We cannot say that Barrios’s sentence, which falls at
the low-end of the guideline range, is unreasonable.
The sentence is
AFFIRMED.
4