erred by denying him a two-level adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b)
(2007) based upon his status as a minor participant in the offense.
Vega’s argument that he qualified for the minor participant adjustment
because he was a mere courier of drugs is unavailing. See United States v.
Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 434 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Pofahl, 990 F.2d
1456, 1485 (5th Cir. 1993). Rather, such a role is “an indispensable part” of drug
related offenses. See United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.
1989). The district court determined that Vega’s role was essential to the offense
and also observed that Vega provided law enforcement officials inconsistent
statements. The district court thus rejected Vega’s assertion regarding his
offense role in light of the totality of the circumstances presented by Vega’s case.
The district court’s determination concerning Vega’s role in the offense is
plausible in light of the record and thus is not clearly erroneous. See § 3B1.2
comment. (n.3(C)); United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th
Cir. 2008); United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203-04 (5th Cir. 2005).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.