
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juana Veronica ROCHA DE SEPULVEDA, also known as Veronica Rocha-Acosta, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-50621
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 20, 2008.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juana Veronica Rocha de Sepulveda appeals her sentence following her guilty plea conviction for importation of over 50 kilograms of marijuana and possession with the intent to distribute over 50 kilograms of marijuana. She argues that the district court clearly erred in denying her a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Rocha de Sepulveda contends that she was a mere courier who was substantially less culpable than other participants in the offense. She further argues that if the Guidelines were not properly calculated, her sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness.

Whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant is a factual determination reviewed for clear error. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2005). Pursuant to § 3B1.2, a district court may decrease a defendant’s offense level by two levels if the defendant was a minor participant. An adjustment for a minor role applies to a defendant “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” § 3B1.2, comment, (n.5).

The district court did not clearly err in denying Rocha de Sepulveda a minor role adjustment, and the Guidelines were properly calculated. See United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Nevarez-Arreola, 885 F.2d 243, 245 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 137-38 (5th Cir.1989).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     