United States v. Rocha de Sepulveda

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 20, 2008 No. 07-50621 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUANA VERONICA ROCHA DE SEPULVEDA, also known as Veronica Rocha- Acosta Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-161-ALL Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Juana Veronica Rocha de Sepulveda appeals her sentence following her guilty plea conviction for importation of over 50 kilograms of marijuana and possession with the intent to distribute over 50 kilograms of marijuana. She argues that the district court clearly erred in denying her a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Rocha de Sepulveda contends that she was a mere courier who was substantially less culpable than other participants in the * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-50621 offense. She further argues that if the Guidelines were not properly calculated, her sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. Whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant is a factual determination reviewed for clear error. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to § 3B1.2, a district court may decrease a defendant’s offense level by two levels if the defendant was a minor participant. An adjustment for a minor role applies to a defendant “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” § 3B1.2, comment. (n.5). The district court did not clearly err in denying Rocha de Sepulveda a minor role adjustment, and the Guidelines were properly calculated. See United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Nevarez- Arreola, 885 F.2d 243, 245 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 137-38 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2