[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-11095 OCTOBER 17, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-20719-CR-DMM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CANDELARIO DE LA ROSA-PADILLA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 17, 2006)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Candelario De La Rosa-Padilla appeals his sentence of 168 months of
imprisonment for conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute
five or more kilograms of cocaine while on board a vessel. 46 U.S.C. App.
§ 1903(a), (j). Rosa-Padilla 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
played an important or essential role in the importation of those drugs.” Id. at
2
942-43. Similarly, the defendant’s culpability is determined by comparison with
other participants in the relevant conduct. Id. at 944.
Rosa-Padilla and several codefendants were arrested as they attempted to
transport approximately 2,600 kilograms of cocaine, and Rosa-Padilla’s relevant
conduct was limited to that cargo. Because evidence was presented that Rosa-
Padilla assisted in the navigation of the boat, recruited at least one other member of
the conspiracy to join, and was identified by his co-conspirators as the captain of
the “go fast” boat, the district court did not clearly err in determining that Rosa-
Padilla did not qualify for a minor-role reduction.
We also conclude that Rosa-Padilla’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.
The transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects that the district court
considered the section 3553 factors and the arguments made by Rosa-Padilla
3
regarding his background and personal characteristics. We cannot say that Rosa-
Padilla’s sentence, which falls at the low end of the undisputed guideline range, is
unreasonable.
The sentence is
AFFIRMED.
4