United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 11, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40612
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NELDA GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CR-946-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nelda Garcia appeals the 135-month sentence imposed following
her guilty-plea conviction of possession with the intent to
distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. She argues that
the district court violated FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(i)(3)(B) when it did
not make a specific ruling or finding on her request for a downward
adjustment for having a minor role. Because the district court
adopted the presentence report (PSR) and because the findings in
the PSR are sufficiently clear that we are not left to second guess
the basis for the sentencing decision, the district court’s
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
adoption of the PSR satisfies the mandates of Rule 32. See United
States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1231 (5th Cir. 1994).
Furthermore, the district court’s finding that Garcia was not a
minor participant was plausible in light of the record as a whole
and, thus, not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Villanueva,
408 F.3d 193, 203-04 (5th Cir. 2005).
Garcia also argues that her sentence should not be afforded a
presumption of reasonableness merely because it is within the
properly-calculated guideline range. Under this court’s precedent,
a sentence within a properly-calculated guidelines range, like the
one here, is presumptively reasonable, United States v. Mares, 402
F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court has confirmed
this view in Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754 (U.S. June 21,
2007).
Garcia argues that her sentence is unreasonable because the
district court failed to consider or failed to give enough weight
to (1) her allegedly minor role in the offense; (2) the fact that
she allegedly committed the offense under duress; and (3) her
history and characteristics, particularly her attempts to provide
substantial assistance to the Government. As previously discussed,
the district court found that Garcia was not eligible for a minor-
role adjustment. Garcia’s sentence accounts for her assistance to
the Government, as she was awarded a two-level adjustment under the
safety valve. The district court based its decision to sentence
Garcia to the low end of the advisory range of imprisonment based
2
on the facts that this was Garcia’s first offense and because
Garcia felt pressured to commit the offense. Garcia has not
demonstrated that her sentence is unreasonable. See Mares,
402 F.3d at 518-20.
AFFIRMED.
3