
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Frederick JARVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-50974
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 24, 2006.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

William Frederick Jarvis appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of 50 kilograms or more of marijuana and for possession with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952, and 960. He argues that the district court clearly erred in denying him a minor role adjustment to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Jarvis contends that he was a mere courier who was substantially less culpable than other participants in the offense.

We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and review factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 268, 163 L.Ed.2d 241 (2005). Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 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 Jarvis a minor role adjustment. See United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 137-38 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Nevarez-Arreola, 885 F.2d 243, 245 (5th Cir.1989). The district court’s judgment 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     