UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4815
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROBERTO SOBEYANIS-SANCHEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00274-D-4)
Submitted: March 7, 2012 Decided: March 28, 2012
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Rafael Rodriguez, LAW OFFICES OF J. RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ, Miami,
Florida, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roberto Sobeyanis-Sanchez pleaded guilty to
distribution of cocaine and aiding and abetting, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006), and illegally entering the United
States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) (2006). The district
court sentenced Sobeyanis-Sanchez to seventy-six months of
imprisonment and he now appeals.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330,
335 (4th Cir. 2009). In so doing, we examine the sentence for
“significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate
(or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) [(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Moreover, in reviewing the district court’s
calculations under the Guidelines, “we review the district
court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for
clear error.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We
will “find clear error only if, on the entire evidence, we are
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
2
been committed.” Id. at 631 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Under the Guidelines, a defendant who is only a “minor
participant” in criminal activity is eligible for a two-level
reduction in offense level. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”) § 3B1.2(b) (2011). This applies to a defendant who is
“substantially less culpable than the average participant,” “but
whose role could not be described as minimal.” USSG § 3B1.2(b),
cmt. n.3(A) & n.5. In deciding whether the defendant played a
minor role, the “critical inquiry is thus not just whether the
defendant has done fewer bad acts than his co-defendants, but
whether the defendant’s conduct is material or essential to
committing the offense.” United States v. Pratt, 239 F.3d 640,
646 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that court must measure the
defendant’s individual acts and relative culpability against the
elements of the offense) (citations omitted). The defendant has
the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he
played a minor role in the offense. United States v. Akinkoye,
185 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1999). We have thoroughly reviewed
the record and conclude that the district court did not clearly
err in denying a minor role adjustment in offense level.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4