The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-21274•United States v. Morales
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-21274
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANK MORALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CR-876-ALL
--------------------
January 27, 2003
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Frank Morales appeals his guilty-plea conviction for
possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin
and importation of that amount of heroin. Morales contends that
his sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for
resentencing because the district court failed to consider
Amendment 635 to the Sentencing Guidelines in denying his request
for a reduction for his minor role in the offense under U.S.S.G.
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 01-21274
-2-
§ 3B1.2. Morales also avers that the district court failed to
make sufficient factual findings with regard to this issue so as
to allow this court to properly review the issue.
First, the district court’s findings were sufficient.
United States v. Melton, 930 F.2d 1096, 1099 (5th Cir. 1991); see
also FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(1). Second, the district court
specifically stated at sentencing that it had considered
Amendment 635 in denying Morales a role reduction. Lastly, the
district court did not clearly err by denying Morales a role
reduction because it is clear from the record that Morales was
not substantially less culpable than the average participant in
the offense and that his role was not peripheral to the
advancement of the illicit activity. United States v. Deavours,
219 F.3d 400, 404 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v.
Gallardo-Trapero, 185 F.3d 307, 324 (5th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.