
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique Lumdury CASTELLANOS, also known as Kiki, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-51182
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 22, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Judy Fulmer Madewell, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GARZA, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Enrique Lumdury Castellanos (Lumdu-ry) was convicted of, inter alia, a marijuana conspiracy with Jorge Luis Saenz and others. He now appeals the district court’s denial of a two-level minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. For the following reasons, we affirm.

We review the district court’s conclusion that Lumdury was not a minor participant for clear error. See United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9 (5th Cir.2005). The presentence report and the factual basis provided, inter alia, that when police searched Lumdury’s home, they found over 27 pounds of marijuana and roughly $55,000 in cash concealed in the walls, as well as items consistent with the resale of marijuana; that Lumdury had also stored another load of marijuana at his home for Saenz; that Lumdury had sold marijuana for Saenz; and that Lum-dury had conversations with a coconspirator after Saenz was arrested during which he discussed undertaking efforts to secure Saenz’s release on bail and arrange for a lawyer for Saenz and another coconspirator. Given these facts, we cannot say that the district court’s conclusion that Lumdu-ry was not a minor player, i.e., that his involvement was not peripheral to the advancement of the criminal activity, was implausible in light of the record as a whole. See Villanueva, 408 F.3d at 203-04.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     