
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jaime GUZMAN-ARIAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50515
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 26, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Suite B-207, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jaime Guzman-Arias (Guzman) was convicted of one count of importing cocaine into the United States and one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. The district court sentenced him to serve concurrent 121-month terms of imprisonment. Guzman now appeals his sentence. He argues that the district court erred by rejecting his argument that he was a minor participant in the offense and by denying him a two-level adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

Guzman was not entitled to the minor participant adjustment simply because his role in the offense was limited to transporting drugs. See United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 434 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456, 1485 (5th Cir.1993). Rather, such a role is “an indispensable part” of drug related offenses. See United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.1989).

The district court determined that the cocaine transported by Guzman was a dangerous drug and that the value of the contraband would be substantially increased by its transportation farther into the United States. The district court’s determination concerning Guzman’s role in the offense is plausible in light of the entire record and thus is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Gallegos, 868 F.2d 711, 713 (5th Cir.1989).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under .the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     