
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Genaro CENICEROS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-51124
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 21, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal, Public Defender Federal, Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, STEWART and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Genaro Ceniceros pleaded guilty to importing and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana. The district court sentenced Ceniceros to 21 months of imprisonment, a term at the bottom of the guidelines range. Ceniceros appeals his sentence, arguing that he was entitled to a two-level reduction in his offense level under U.S.S.G § 3B1.2(b) as a minor participant in the drug-trafficking operation.

Ceniceros has not met his burden to establish that he played only a minor role in the offense. See Burton v. United States, 237 F.3d 490, 503 (5th Cir.2000). Ceniceros’s sentence was based entirely on the conduct that he was directly involved in and the quantity of drugs that he personally transported; thus, a minor-role adjustment was not required even if he played only a small part in a large enterprise. See United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir.1995). In any event, Ceniceros’s argument that he should have received the adjustment because he was merely a drug courier with little knowledge of the smuggling operation is unavailing. A courier is often “indispensable” to a drug-smuggling operation, United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.1989), and thus is not automatically entitled to a minor-role adjustment. United States v. Jenkins, 487 F.3d 279, 282 (5th Cir.2007). Ceniceros’s role in transporting over 25 kilograms of drugs across the border was more than peripheral; therefore, the district court did not clearly err in finding that he was not a minor participant. See United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203-04 (5th Cir.2005).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     