United States v. Quintanilla-Alcantar
United States v. Quintanilla-Alcantar
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20095 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS D. QUINTANILLA-ALCANTARA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-356-ALL - - - - - - - - - - January 15, 2003
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos D. Quintanilla-Alcantara (“Quintanilla”) appeals his
conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute
500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841.
He argues that
21 U.S.C. § 841is unconstitutional in light of
the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466(2000). This argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 02-20095 -2-
in United States v. Slaughter,
238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000),
cert. denied,
532 U.S. 1045(2001).
Quintanilla argues that the district court clearly erred in
refusing to award a two-level reduction in his guideline range on
the basis that he was a minor participant in the offense. See
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. However, a defendant “may be a courier without
being substantially less culpable that the average participant.”
United States v. Brown,
54 F.3d 234, 241(5th Cir. 1995). The
district court did not err in refusing to give Quintanilla the
minor role adjustment. See United States v. Gallegos,
868 F.2d 711, 713(5th Cir. 1989). Further, the district court was not
required to state its reasons for denying the reduction because
it expressly adopted the findings and conclusions of the
presentence report. See United States v. Gallardo-Trapero,
185 F.3d 307, 323-24(5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished