Case: 20-40877 Document: 00516035682 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 29, 2021
No. 20-40877 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Karina Lizett Juarez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:18-CR-1886-1
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Karina Lizett Juarez appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty
plea conviction for importing 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. She
argues that the district court clearly erred in denying her a mitigating role
adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-40877 Document: 00516035682 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2021
No. 20-40877
Whether a defendant was a minor or minimal participant under
§ 3B1.2 is a factual determination that we review for clear error. United States
v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2016). There is no clear error if
a factual finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole. Id.
Juarez transported a large quantity of methamphetamine from Mexico
into the United States on at least two occasions, and border patrol records
indicated that she had crossed into the United States from Mexico
approximately 41 times in a four-month period. Juarez was not entitled to a
mitigating role adjustment merely because she was a drug courier or mule.
See United States v. Castro, 843 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir. 2016); United States
v. Silva-De Hoyos, 702 F.3d 843, 847 (5th Cir. 2012). She was entrusted with
a large quantity of pure methamphetamine, totaling 8.45 kilograms. See
United States v. Anchundia-Espinoza, 897 F.3d 629, 634-35 (5th Cir. 2018).
Moreover, Juarez was held responsible for the methamphetamine that she
transported and that was seized by agents. Because her sentence was based
on her own conduct, § 3B1.2 does not require a mitigating role adjustment
even if her conduct was minor or minimal compared to the larger drug
conspiracy. See United States v. Stanford, 823 F.3d 814, 852 (5th Cir. 2016).
The district court’s finding that she was an average participant was plausible
in view of the record as a whole and, therefore, the district court did not
clearly err in denying Juarez a mitigating role adjustment under § 3B1.2. See
Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d at 327.
AFFIRMED.
2