United States v. Amaya-Martinez ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10550 Document: 00515824487 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 16, 2021
No. 20-10550 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Sergio Amaya-Martinez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-362-15
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Sergio Amaya-Martinez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and
841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Amaya-Martinez to 168
months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Amaya-
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10550 Document: 00515824487 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2021
No. 20-10550
Martinez appeals, arguing that the district court erred in denying his request
for a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.
This court reviews preserved challenges to the district court’s
interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its
factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Rodriguez, 630 F.3d 377,
380 (5th Cir. 2011). Whether Amaya-Martinez was a minimal or minor
participant under § 3B1.2 is a factual determination that this court reviews
for clear error. United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir.
2016).
According to Amaya-Martinez, he “was clearly a less than average
participant” and “substantially less culpable” than his co-conspirators
Bernardo Martinez and Carlos Dominguez. See United States v. Castro, 843
F.3d 608, 613 (5th Cir. 2016). He claims that he “did not plan or organize
the [criminal] activity”; he had no decision-making authority and merely
“followed orders”; he was not the supply source or “even the middleman”;
and was “on the lower rung of the participant ladder” below his co-
conspirators Martinez and Dominguez.
Amaya-Martinez provides no record citations for these claims, but as
the presentence report explains, the members of the conspiracy “maintained
a fluid hierarchy that evolved over time.” Additionally, the record shows
that Amaya-Martinez actively participated in three large drug transactions.
Amaya-Martinez relies on a single case, United States v. Sotelo, 97 F.3d
782, 799 (5th Cir. 1996), for the proposition that he was entitled to at least a
two-point, minor role adjustment. He makes several comparisons between
his conspiracy-related activities and those of the defendant in Sotelo, who
received a two-point reduction for a minor role. See id. This argument is
unavailing as “the defendant’s culpability is determined only by reference to
his or her co-participants in the case at hand.” United States v. Bello-Sanchez,
2
Case: 20-10550 Document: 00515824487 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/16/2021
No. 20-10550
872 F.3d 260, 264 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Even if this court could consider a defendant’s conduct in an
unrelated case, Sotelo is of little benefit to Amaya-Martinez. In Sotelo, 97 F.3d
at 799, the propriety of the minor role reduction was not at issue on appeal,
and this court did not comment on its appropriateness. Rather, the Sotelo
court rejected the defendant’s claim that he should have received a four-
point reduction for being a minimal (rather than a minor) participant. Id.
Because Amaya-Hernandez has failed to carry his burden of showing
that he was entitled to a mitigating role adjustment, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED. See Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d at 207.
3