United States v. Silvario Herea-Martinez ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
August 8, 2006
No. 05-15682 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00261-CR-T-27-MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SILVARIO HEREA-MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(August 8, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Silvario Herea-Martinez appeals the 135-month sentence imposed
after being convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine on a vessel
subject to United States jurisdiction, 46 App. U.S.C. § 1903(a), and conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine on a vessel subject to United States
jurisdiction, 46 App. U.S.C. § 1903(a), (g), and (j). On appeal, Herea-Martinez
argues that the district court erred in denying his request for a mitigating-role
reduction. He argues that United States v. DeVaron, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999)
(en banc), should be overturned with regard to drug couriers.
“[A] district court’s determination of a defendant’s role in the offense is a
question of fact to be viewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” DeVaron, 175
F.3d at 938.
Herea-Martinez asks this panel to revisit and overturn DeVaron; this we
cannot do. This panel does not have the authority to overturn the decision of a
prior panel, much less a prior en banc decision of this Court. See Cargill v.
Turpin, 120 F.3d 1366, 1386 (11th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we conclude that the
district court did not clearly err, and we affirm Herea-Martinez’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
2