
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos GUERRA, also known as Guero, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-41036
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 12, 2015.
    Eileen K. Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Carmen Roe, Esq., Carmen M. Roe, Attorney at Law, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Carlos Guerra appeals the 210-month sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance involving 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana and five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine and (2) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance involving 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana. Guerra argues that the district court erred in overruling his objection to the lack of a mitigating role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

Whether Guerra was a minimal or minor participant is a factual determination that we review for clear error. See United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 626 (5th Cir.2013). Guerra does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he played a minimal role in the conspiracy. See § 3B1.2, comment, (n.4); see also Alaniz, 726 F.3d at 626; United States v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d 154, 163 (5th Cir.2005). Nor does he establish that he played a “substantially less culpable” role than the “average participant” in the drug distribution organization or that his role was “peripheral to the advancement” of the organization’s illegal activities. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203-04 (5th Cir.2005); see Alaniz, 726 F.3d at 626; De Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d at 163; United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001); § 3B1.2, comment, (n. 5). Accordingly, the district court’s finding that Guerra was not deserving of a minor role adjustment is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Valdez, 726 F.3d 684, 692 (5th Cir.2013); Villanueva, 408 F.3d at 204. 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     