IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-40007
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ERNESTO CASIANO-BLASCO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CR-1422-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, and Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ernesto Casiano-Blasco (Casiano) appeals his 57-month sentence
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with
intent to distribute in excess of 500 grams of cocaine. Casiano
argues that the district court clearly erred by finding that his
offense involved jointly undertaken criminal conduct and that
Casiano thus was responsible for the amount of cocaine smuggled by
his co-defendant.
Casiano’s statements, as detailed in the presentence report
(PSR), reveal that he recruited his co-defendant to import cocaine
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-40007
-2-
on behalf of his employer and he assisted her in secreting the
cocaine on her person. As such, Casiano acted in concert with his
co-defendant and with his employer to smuggle cocaine into the
United States, and thus, was involved in jointly undertaken
criminal activity. See § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) & comment n.2. Casiano’s
relevant conduct properly included the cocaine that he helped his
co-defendant to import into the United States as it was reasonably
foreseeable that such quantity of cocaine was within the scope of
their joint enterprise. See id. Accordingly, the district court’s
findings that Casiano’s offense involved jointly undertaken
criminal conduct and that Casiano thus was responsible for the
amount of cocaine imported by his co-defendant were not clearly
erroneous. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n.9
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 268 (2005).
Casiano argues that the district court automatically
disqualified him from receiving a minor-role reduction because he
imported drugs. The record reflects that the district court denied
Casiano a minor-role reduction because his role in transporting the
cocaine into the United States involved conduct that was critical
to the success of the drug importation scheme. Casiano’s assertion
is unsupported by the record and is meritless.
Casiano next argues that the district court clearly erred by
denying him a minor-role reduction because, as a drug courier, he
was substantially less culpable than others involved in the drug
importation scheme. Casiano’s participation as a courier in an
No. 06-40007
-3-
enterprise that transported more than four kilograms of cocaine
into the United States was indispensable to the success of the
drug-trafficking organization. Moreover, Casiano was not merely a
drug courier as he recruited his co-defendant to participate in the
drug importation scheme. Casiano has not shown that he was
substantially less culpable than the average participant in the
scheme, and thus, the district court did not clearly err by denying
him a minor-role reduction. See United States v. Brown, 54 F.3d
234, 241 (5th Cir. 1995); Villanueva, 408 F.3d at 203 & n.9.
Finally, Casiano argues that, because his sentence was based
on the district court’s erroneous factual findings, his sentence
was unreasonable. Casiano’s contention that his sentence was
unreasonable is grounded in the arguments raised and rejected in
this appeal. Because the district court sentenced Casiano within
a properly calculated guideline range, Casiano’s sentence is
presumed to be reasonable, and he has failed to rebut the
presumption. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th
Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm Casiano’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.