United States v. Cardiel

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 30, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-50365
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSUE MANUEL CARDIEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-2015
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Josue Manuel Cardiel appeals the 97-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for importing 50 or more
kilograms of marijuana into the United States and possession of
50 or more kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute. He
argues that the district court improperly estimated the amount of
marijuana that was attributed to him.
The district court based its determination on Cardiel’s
admissions, his testimony, and evidence produced by the
Government at the sentencing hearing. Cardiel did not dispute

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-50365
-2-
that each load he transported contained approximately 80 to 100
pounds of marijuana. Cardiel has not shown that the district
court clearly erred when it estimated the drug quantity for which
Cardiel was held responsible. See United States v. Villanueva,
408 F.3d 193, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 268
(2005).
Cardiel also asserts that the district court erred when it
refused to reduce his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2
for his minor role. Cardiel contends that he was merely a
courier.
The record indicates that Cardiel played an integral role in
transporting large quantities of marijuana from Mexico to the
United States, that the persons hiring him trusted him enough to
register a vehicle in his name, and that his actions were
important to the success of the drug venture. Cardiel has not
shown that the district court clearly erred in finding that he
was not entitled to a reduction for a minor role in the offense.
See United States v. Franco-Torres, 869 F.2d 797, 801 (5th Cir.
1989).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --