United States v. Onuohah

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 20, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-50943
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MCLLOYD ONUOHAH,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-02-CR-2009-ALL-DB
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
McLloyd Onuohah (Onuohah) appeals his sentence for one count
of wire fraud and two counts of mail fraud, violations of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1341. Onuohah argues that the district court
misapplied the United States Sentencing Guidelines and erred in
denying him a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.
Section 3B1.2 provides for a two-point reduction in the
offense level if the defendant was a minor participant. See

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-50943
-2-
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. A “minor participant” is defined as one who is
substantially “less culpable than most other participants, but
whose role could not be described as minimal.” See U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.2, comment. (n.5). As Onuohah was directly involved in
finding suppliers for the fraudulent checks and directly involved
in delivering the checks to the person who was to negotiate them,
his role in the offense cannot be said to have been “peripheral
to the advancement of the illicit activity.” See United States
v. Thomas, 932 F.2d 1085, 1092 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the
district court did not clearly err in refusing to adjust
Onuohah’s offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See United
States v. Deavours, 219 F.3d 400, 404 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --