United States v. Rojas ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 20, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30017
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIO ROJAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 03-CR-18-ALL-B
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mario Rojas (“Rojas”) appeals the sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to
distribute more than one kilogram of heroin. Rojas argues that
the district court clearly erred by refusing to grant him a two
to four level reduction in his offense level for being a minor or
minimal participant in the offense because he was merely a drug
courier.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-30017
-2-
Rojas’s role in the offense “turns upon culpability, not
courier status.” See United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135,
138 (5th Cir. 1989). Consequently, Rojas is not necessarily
eligible for a reduction of his offense level under U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.2. See United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 434 (5th
Cir. 1995). The large quantity of heroin that Rojas was
transporting supports the district court’s finding that Rojas was
not a minor or minimal participant. See United States v.
Gallegos, 868 F.2d 711, 712-13 (5th Cir. 1989). Additionally,
the fact that Rojas’s sentence was based only upon activities in
which he participated supports the district court’s
determination. See United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199
(5th Cir. 1995). While Rojas did not have enough information to
provide substantial assistance to authorities, this does not show
that he was a minor or minimal participant because couriers who
transport illegal substances without substantial knowledge of the
criminal activities involved can be very valuable to a criminal
organization. See Buenrostro, 868 F.2d at 138.
Rojas has not shown that the district court clearly erred by
refusing him a reduction for being a minor or minimal participant
in the offense. Accordingly, Rojas’s sentence is AFFIRMED.