United States v. Perez ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40355 Document: 00516676859 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
March 14, 2023
No. 22-40355
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Karla Jessica Perez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:21-CR-644-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Karla Jessica Perez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and she was sentenced below the advisory guidelines
range to 70 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
She appeals her sentence, arguing that the district court clearly erred by
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40355 Document: 00516676859 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2023
denying her a two-level minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Perez
alleges that a two-level reduction was warranted because her involvement in
the overall conspiracy was minor. She points to the fact that there was no
evidence that she directly benefited financially or that she was essential or
indispensable to the wider conspiracy.
Because Perez preserved her arguments by raising them in the district
court, we review “the district court’s interpretation and application of the
Sentencing Guidelines de novo” and its “findings of fact and its application
of the Sentencing Guidelines to those findings of fact . . . for clear error.”
United States v. Cedillo–Narvaez, 761 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2014). Whether
a defendant is a minor participant under § 3B1.2 is a factual question
reviewed for clear error. United States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th
Cir. 2016).
While Perez did not receive any direct financial benefit from the
transaction, the district court could plausibly find that Perez’s conduct was
not peripheral to the advancement of the illegal activity and did not warrant
a reduction. See id. Perez knew she was transporting illegal drugs across the
border. Moreover, transporting the methamphetamine and communicating
with and participating in money transfers with known methamphetamine
suppliers are not peripheral activities. While Perez’s actions may have been
peripheral to the overarching drug conspiracy, they were not peripheral to
these particular transactions, and she was only sentenced for participating in
those transactions. See United States v. Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d 260, 264 (5th
Cir. 2017). The district court did not clearly err by denying Perez a
§ 3B1.2(b) role reduction. United States v. Anchundia-Espinoza, 897 F.3d
629, 634 (5th Cir. 2018); Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d at 264-65; Gomez-Valle, 828
F.3d at 329.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.