The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-10799•Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Mario Alberto Jauregui-Balderrama
07-10799Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitMay 9, 2008
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-10799
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MARIO ALBERTO JAUREGUI-BALDERRAMA
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:06-CR-208-ALL
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mario Alberto Jauregui-Balderrama (Jauregui) appeals the sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
He argues that the district court clearly erred in denying him a two-level
adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for his self-described minor role in the
offense as a courier.
Whether a defendant was a minimal or minor participant is a factual
determination that will not be held clearly erroneous unless it is implausible in
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 9, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 07-10799
2
light of the record as a whole. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203
(5th Cir. 2005). According to the presentence report, Jauregui purchased a pick-
up truck from his drug supplier, consented to the installation of a hidden
compartment in the vehicle, loaned the vehicle to his supplier six to seven times
within a year, and was to be paid $4,000 for transporting almost 10 kilograms
of cocaine. In light of these facts, the district court did not clearly err in denying
him a minor-role adjustment. See United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434,
446-47 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.