United States v. Cotinola

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-51464
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CRYSTAL ROXANN COTINOLA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-03-CR-1302-ALL
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Crystal Roxann Cotinola pleaded guilty to importation of 50
kilograms or more of marijuana and to possession with intent to
distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana. She was sentenced
to 21 months’ imprisonment for each offense, to be served
concurrently; three years’ supervised release for each offense,
to be served concurrently; and a $200 special assessment.
Cotinola argues on appeal that the district court erred in
denying her a two-point reduction in her offense level as a minor
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 22, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-51464
-2-
participant in the offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). She
argues that the district court incorrectly based the denial of
her adjustment on certain irrelevant factors mentioned in the
presentence report and its addendum. She also contends that she
was a mere drug courier and drug couriers generally are much less
culpable than other participants. She further asserts that she
was substantially less culpable than other drug couriers because
she was recruited at the last minute, she did not know how much
marijuana she was carrying, and she did not know the exact amount
that she would be paid.
The district court did not misapply the guidelines or
clearly err in determining that Cotinola was not entitled to an
adjustment based on her role in the offense. The district court
considered the presentence report in its entirety when making its
decision. In addition, Cotinola’s status as a courier did not
alone entitle her to a minor role adjustment. See United States
v. Rojas, 868 F.2d 1409, 1410 (5th Cir. 1989). Furthermore,
Cotinola was transporting a large quantity of marijuana and the
district court was not required to accept her version of the
circumstances surrounding her crime. See United States v.
Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1989). The district
court did not clearly err in determining that Cotinola did not
show by a preponderance of the evidence that she was entitled to
a downward adjustment for her minor role. See United States v.
Brown, 54 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 1995).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-51464
-3-
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --