
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nora Josefina ROBLES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-51419
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 15, 2008.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, 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 STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Nora Josefina Robles appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea conviction of importation of marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and illegal reentry. She argues that the district court clearly erred by denying her motion for a two-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) because she had a minor role in the offense.

A Section 3B1.2 reduction applies only when a defendant is substantially less culpable than the average participant. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2005). Robles’s courier status alone did not entitle her to a role adjustment because a defendant may be a courier without being “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” United States v. Brown, 54 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in original). If a sentence is based on activity in which a defendant was actually involved, Section 3B1.2 does not require a reduction in the base offense level even though the defendant’s activity in a larger conspiracy may have been minor. United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir.1995).

Robles admitted to transporting 40.47 kilograms of marijuana across the border and she admitted that she suspected that the vehicle that she was driving across the border contained the drugs. Her sentence was based on the amount of drugs which were present in the vehicle. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in denying her request for a reduction based on her role in the offense. The 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     