Case: 19-41051 Document: 00515631863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 9, 2020
No. 19-41051 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Pedro Raul Gonzalez-Mendoza,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:18-CR-2048-1
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Pedro Raul Gonzalez-Mendoza pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess
with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing
methamphetamine and five kilograms or more of a substance containing
cocaine, and he was sentenced at the bottom of the applicable guidelines
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-41051 Document: 00515631863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2020
No. 19-41051
range to 168 months of imprisonment. He filed a timely notice of appeal and
now challenges the district court’s denial of his request for a two-level minor-
role adjustment under U.S.S.G § 3B1.2(b).
A “minor participant” is any participant “who is less culpable than
most other participants in the criminal activity, but whose role could not be
described as minimal.” § 3B1.2, comment. (n.5). Upon a de novo review of
the record, see United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir.
2016), we reject Gonzalez-Mendoza’s argument that the district court
misinterpreted the Guideline by comparing his conduct to that of defendants
involved in conspiracies other than the instant one.1
We review for clear error the factual determination whether a
defendant played a minor role in the offense. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d at
207. In the face of Gonzalez-Mendoza’s argument that he was a mere mule
or drug courier, the district court found that he was at least an average
participant and was not entitled to a minor-role adjustment. Considering the
totality of the circumstances presented here, see United States v. Kearby, 943
F.3d 969, 977 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2584 (2020), we are not
left “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed” in this regard. Accordingly, there is no clear error, United States
v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548, 550 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1
The details of this argument were provided for the first time in the Reply Brief,
so we need not consider them. Even if we did, Gonzalez-Mendoza’s citation to the district
court’s mention of other cases it had heard does not support the argument that the district
court was comparing his culpability to defendants in those cases. Thus, nothing supports
the argument that the district court misinterpreted the Guideline in this manner.
2