United States v. Wilkins

283 F. App'x 197
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 19, 2008
Docket07-50865
StatusUnpublished

This text of 283 F. App'x 197 (United States v. Wilkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Wilkins, 283 F. App'x 197 (5th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Eddy Wilkins appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction of importation of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Wilkins argues that the district court clearly erred in denying him a two-level minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He contends that the adjustment was warranted because he was a mere courier who was less culpable than other participants in the offense.

Whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant is a factual determination that is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2005). Pursuant to § 3B1.2, a district court may decrease a defendant’s offense level by two levels if the defendant was a minor participant. An adjustment for a minor role applies to a defendant “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” § 3B1.2, comment, (n.5).

The district court did not clearly err in denying Wilkins a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Nevarez-Arreola, 885 F.2d 243, 245 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.1989).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Atanda
60 F.3d 196 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Villanueva
408 F.3d 193 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Leonard Orozco Buenrostro
868 F.2d 135 (Fifth Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Francisco Nevarez-Arreola
885 F.2d 243 (Fifth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 F. App'x 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-wilkins-ca5-2008.