Case ID: f-appx_425/html/0040-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jason TORRES, a.k.a. JUNIOR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-3029-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 22, 2011.
    
      Paul P. Rinaldo, Esq., Forrest Hills, NY, for Appellant.
    Anna M. Skotko (Katherine Polk Failla, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: CHESTER J. STRAUB, REENA RAGGI, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Jason Torres, who stands convicted on a guilty plea of unlawful possession of a firearm following a felony conviction, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), challenges his 77-month Guidelines-range sentence, faulting the district court for failing to award him a two-level minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We assume familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

Torres contends that whether he was entitled to a minor role adjustment is a question of legal interpretation of the Guidelines that is subject to de novo review. See Appellant’s Br. at 6 (citing United States v. Carpenter, 252 F.3d 230, 234 (2d Cir.2001)). As the government observes, “this circuit has not always been consistent in describing the standard of review for role adjustments,” variously indicating that abuse of discretion, de novo, or clear error review is applicable. United States v. Labbe, 588 F.3d 139, 145 n. 2 (2d Cir.2009) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); see Appellee’s Br. at 7-8. We need not resolve this question here, because our analysis would reach the same result regardless of the standard of review.

A defendant seeking a two-point offense-level reduction under § 3B 1.2(b) bears the burden of demonstrating that he is “substantially less culpable than the average participant” in the crime of conviction. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n. 3(A); see United States v. Carpenter, 252 F.3d at 234. Torres contends that he qualified for a minor-role adjustment because he possessed the firearm in question only briefly, in the course of acting as an intermediary in the sale of the firearm to an undercover agent. The district court considered Torres’s argument and carefully explained why it rejected it. Specifically, the court found that Torres was “more than just a possessor” of the charged firearm; he was more even than just a “delivery person.” Sentencing Tr. at 26. He was “the person who set up the transaction.” Id. Further, he was “intricately involved” in the sale transaction, id. at 24, acting as a “broker” and thereby giving “comfort” to both the gun seller and the gun buyer that in “a couple of trips and a couple of phone calls” he could finalize their illicit exchange, id. at 26-27. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that these facts support the denial of a minor-role adjustment and imposition of the challenged sentence.

We have considered Torres’s other arguments and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of conviction.