UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5046
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AGUSTO VALVERDE-MORALES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:11-cr-00134-JAB-3)
Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 26, 2012
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anne R. Littlejohn, LAW OFFICE OF ANNE R. LITTLEJOHN,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United
States Attorney, Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Agusto Valverde-Morales appeals the twenty-two-month
sentence he received on his guilty plea to one count of
importation of an alien for an immoral purpose, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1328 (2006). The lone issue he asserts on appeal is
that the sentencing court erred in declining to grant him a two-
level minor participant reduction under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.2(b) (2011). For the following
reasons, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). In assessing whether a sentencing court properly
applied the Guidelines, the district court’s factual findings
are reviewed for clear error and its legal conclusions are
reviewed de novo. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387
(4th Cir. 2008). We will “find clear error only if, on the
entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.
Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks, alteration, 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. USSG § 3B1.2(b). This applies to a
defendant who is “substantially less culpable than the average
2
participant,” “but whose role could not be described as
minimal.” USSG § 3B1.2(b), cmt. n.3(A) & n.5. While the
decision whether the defendant played a minor role hinges in
part on a comparison of his conduct with that of his co-
defendants, the “critical inquiry is . . . 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) (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).
Under these principles, we are convinced that the
district court did not clearly err in finding the minor
participant reduction inapplicable to Valverde-Morales. The
statute under which Valverde-Morales was convicted, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1328, forbids the importation of an alien for prostitution and
criminalizes anyone who “keep[s], maintain[s], control[s],
support[s], employ[s], or harbor[s] in any house or other place,
for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral
purpose, any alien, in pursuance of such illegal importation.”
Id. Although Valverde-Morales insists that he served at the
Fitch Street location in largely a janitorial capacity rather
than as a substantial member of the prostitution ring, he has
3
admitted that he maintained the residence at which several of
the prostitutes were held and that he transported various of the
prostitutes and his codefendants to assignations with their
clients. We believe this involvement is, at minimum, “material
. . . to committing the offense,” Pratt, 239 F.3d at 646,
inasmuch as it contributed to the maintenance, support, and
harboring of the illegal prostitution activity. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1328. As a result, the district court did not clearly err in
denying Valverde-Morales’ request for a two-level reduction
under § 3B1.2(b).
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 material
before the court and argument will not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4