IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 17, 2009
No. 08-40705
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
BOBBY ROGERS
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:05-CR-988-ALL
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bobby Rogers pleaded guilty to one count of importing approximately 15
kilograms of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960 and 18
U.S.C. § 2. The district court sentenced Rogers to 235 months of imprisonment.
Rogers now appeals his sentence. Rogers argues that the district court erred in
denying him a two-level reduction in his offense level for his minor role in the
offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b).
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 08-40705
Rogers’s argument that he qualified for the minor participant adjustment
because he was a mere courier of drugs is unavailing. See United States v.
Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 434 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d
1456, 1485 (5th Cir. 1993). Rather, such a role is “an indispensable part” of drug
related offenses. See United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.
1989). The district court denied the reduction because of the amount of drugs,
preparation, and planning involved in the offense and because there was no
evidence that anyone else participated in the transaction. The district court’s
determination concerning Rogers’s role in the offense is plausible in light of the
record and thus is not clearly erroneous. See § 3B1.2 comment. n.(3(C)); United
States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v.
Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203-04 (5th Cir. 2005).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED
2