United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 31, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-61015
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CINTHEIA DENISE PARRA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:05-CR-127-1
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cintheia Denisa Parra appeals her 235-month sentence
following her guilty plea conviction for possession with intent
to distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture and substance
containing methamphetamine. We review the district court’s
interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de
novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v.
Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 202, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 268 (2005).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-61015
-2-
Parra argues that the district court erred when it refused
to grant her a two-level reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§§ 2D1.1(b)(7) and 5C1.2(a)(5) based on its finding that she did
not truthfully provide the Government with all the information
and evidence she had concerning her offense. At sentencing Parra
declined to put on any proof that she had provided complete and
truthful information and she merely asserted that she had given
all information she had about her role in the offense. She did
not meet her burden of showing that she had. See United States
v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 146-47 (5th Cir. 1996). In the light
of the testimony at sentencing, the district court’s finding that
Parra did not provide complete and truthful information regarding
her offense is plausible and, thus, not clearly erroneous. See
Villanueva, 408 F.3d at 203.
She also argues that the district court erred by not
reducing her offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 based on
her mitigating role in the offense. Her assertion that she
merely stored the methamphetamine in her apartment is refuted by
the record. Her role was not “‘peripheral to the advancement of
the illicit activity,’” Villanueva, 408 F.3d at 204 (citation
omitted); it was “critical to the offense.” United States v.
Tremelling, 43 F.3d 148, 153 (5th Cir. 1995). The district
court’s refusal to award a mitigating role adjustment was not
clearly erroneous.
No. 06-61015
-3-
Parra argues that she should have been granted a three-point
reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) and (b) based on her
acceptance of responsibility for her role in the charges against
her. Parra did not argue below, and does not argue now, that
hers is an extraordinary case in which both acceptance of
responsibility and obstruction of justice adjustments should
apply. See § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4). Parra’s conduct, including
smoking marijuana while in jail and absconding before sentencing,
was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility and outweighed
any evidence of her acceptance of responsibility. See § 3E1.1,
comment. (n.3). Thus, the district court did not clearly err in
finding that she had not accepted responsibility.
Parra has not briefed adequately any argument that the
district court erred when it enhanced her sentence pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on her obstruction of justice. See United
States v. Valdiosera-Godinez, 932 F.2d 1093, 1099 (5th Cir.
1991).
Parra argues that the 235-month sentence is unreasonable.
Her sentence was at the bottom of the properly calculated
advisory guideline range. A sentence within such a range is
entitled to “great deference.” United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d
511, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2005). Giving great deference to such a
sentence, and recognizing that the sentencing court considered
all the factors for a fair sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we
No. 06-61015
-4-
conclude that Parra has failed to show that her sentence was
unreasonable. See id.
AFFIRMED.