United States v. Zarate ( 2000 )

No. 99-40981
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40981
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUANITA MORALES ZARATE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-99-CR-109-1
--------------------
February 16, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juanita Morales Zarate appeals her sentence following her
guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute
approximately 92 kilograms of marijuana. She argues that the
record showed that she knew nothing about the criminal
enterprise, that she was simply a courier of the drugs, and that
she should have received a reduction to her offense level for her
minimal or minor participation in the offense. She contends that
the district court clearly erred by overruling her objection to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-40981
-2-
the presentence report.
The role of a defendant in the offense is considered a
factual determination which we review for clear error. United
States v. Davis, 19 F.3d 166, 172 (5th Cir. 1994). A factual
finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of
the record read as a whole. United States v. Watson, 966 F.2d
161, 162 (5th Cir. 1992). Zarate bears the burden of proving her
minor or minimal role in the offense by a preponderance of the
evidence, and the district court was not required to accept her
self-serving statements about her role in the offense. United
States v. Brown, 54 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 1995).
Zarate admitted that she knew she was transporting marijuana
for others, and her argument that she was entitled to minimal-
role status is without merit. See United States v. Becerra, 155
F.3d 740, 757 (5th Cir. 1998). Also, the record reveals that
Zarate essentially presented nothing more than self-serving
statements to support her role-in-the-offense argument. She has
not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that she was a minor
participant. The district court did not clearly err in
overruling Zarate’s objection to the PSR. See Brown, 54 F.3d at
241-42.
AFFIRMED.