USA v. Lafayelle

Filing 920080415

Opinion

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-50787 Conference Calendar April 15, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. CHRISTOPHER SHANNON LAFAYELLE Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:99-CR-483-ALL Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Christopher Shannon Lafayelle appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for possessing with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana. He argues that the district court clearly erred in denying him a minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(b). Lafayelle contends that he was a mere courier who was substantially less culpable than other participants in the offense. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-50787 We review the district court's determination of a defendant's role in the offense for clear error. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 n.9 (5th Cir. 2005). To be eligible for a minor-role adjustment, a defendant "must have been peripheral to the advancement of the illicit activity." United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 447 (5th Cir. 2001). In light of Lafayelle's actual involvement in possessing and transporting a distributable quantity of marijuana, the district court did not clearly err in denying an adjustment for a minor role in the offense. See United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Gallegos, 868 F.2d 711, 712-13 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?