USA v. Addison

Filing 920071214

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 06-41465 Summary Calendar
December 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. RANDALL JAY ADDISON Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-581-ALL

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Randall Jay Addison appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to transporting illegal aliens for financial gain. We affirm. He contends that he was entitled to an offense level reduction for playing a minor role in the offense. Although Addison might have played a relatively minor role in a larger conspiracy to smuggle aliens, he fails to show that his role was minor in relation to the limited conduct of transporting the aliens for which

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-41465 he was held accountable. See United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1989) (noting that one who merely transports contraband is not entitled to reduction). The district court did not commit clear error by refusing to reduce Addison's offense level. Addison contends that he should have received a downward departure from the guidelines range because his criminal history was overrepresented. This court lacks authority to review the district court's refusal to depart downward from the advisory guidelines range because the decision was not based upon any erroneous belief that the district court lacked the authority to depart. See United States v. Hernandez, 457 F.3d 416, 424 n.5 (5th Cir. 2006). Addison contends that his sentence was unreasonable. Addison has not rebutted the presumption that his sentence at the low end of the advisory guidelines range was reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-63 (2007) The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2