
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Javier PINEDA-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-41769
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 24, 2007.
    
      James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Reynaldo Alejandro Pena, The Law Offices of Pena & Pena, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Javier Pineda-Gonzalez appeals from his conviction of conspiring to transport undocumented aliens within the United States. He contends that he was entitled to a downward adjustment to his guideline offense level for minor participation and acceptance of responsibility.

The presentence report indicated that Pineda-Gonzalez was a brush guide who helped conduct a group of 15 undocumented aliens into the country on a hike that lasted three days and three nights. He was in the cab of the pickup used to transport the aliens when it was stopped. One alien saw Pineda-Gonzalez speaking on a cell phone while in the pickup, and Pineda-Gonzalez had the telephone number of coconspirator Arturo Garcia-Gonzalez in his wallet. Pineda-Gonzalez was held accountable only for the aliens transported in the pickup truck on May 18, 2006. As to that criminal episode, the district court’s finding that he was not a minor participant is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Valencia, 44 F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir.1995).

Pineda-Gonzalez pleaded guilty after his trial had been underway for two days. The district court’s determination that Pineda-Gonzalez had not accepted responsibility for his offense was not without foundation. See United States v. Sanchez-Ruedas, 452 F.3d 409, 414 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 315, 166 L.Ed.2d 237 (2006).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     