
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bienvenido RAMIREZ-LEONARDO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-40688
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 11, 2010.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Bienvenido Ramirez-Leonardo appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty of importation of heroin. He argues that the factual basis for his plea did not establish that he knowingly imported a particular quantity of a particular drug into the United States, so his plea should be vacated. He correctly concedes, however, that that argument is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1920, 176 L.Ed.2d 390 (2010) (No. 09-9048); he raises the argument solely to preserve its further review by the Supreme Court.

Ramirez-Leonardo additionally contends that the district court clearly erred in denying him a minor-role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Ramirez-Leonardo’s reliance on his alleged courier status, alone, is unavailing. See United States v. Martinez-Larraga, 517 F.3d 258, 272 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Jenkins, 487 F.3d 279, 282 (5th Cir.2007). The unrebutted facts established that Ramirez-Leonardo imported a large amount of heroin into the United States from the Dominican Republic; traveled a long distance with the heroin in hidden compartments in the soles of multiple pairs of his shoes; was to be paid a large sum of money for his role in the criminal activity; and was solely responsible for transporting the heroin to its final destination of New York. Based on the foregoing, it cannot be said that Ramirez-Leonardo was “peripheral to the advancement of the criminal activity” and thus a minor participant. See Martinez-Larraga, 517 F.Sd at 272.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cut R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     