Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02151/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02151-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfred Camacho-Terrazas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

·" , 

. FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Ttnth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUG 5 1991 

__________ &OBERTL.HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

ALFRED CAMACHO-TERRAZAS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 90-2151 

(D.C. No. 90-0055-HB) 

(D.N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Defendant-appellant Alfred Camacho-Terrazas appeals from the 

sentence imposed after he pled guilty to possession with intent to 

distribute less than fifty kilograms of marijuana in violation of 

21 u.s.c. SS 84l(a)(l), 84l(b)(l)(D). With a base offense level 

of eighteen and a criminal history category of I, defendant was 

granted a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and 

was sentenced to twenty-one months incarceration, the minimum 

applicable sentence. See u.s.s.G. S 3El.l(a) (role in the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for the purposes of establishing the doctrines of law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without 

oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-2151 Document: 010110130218 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 1 
t 

offense), ch. 5 (sentencing table) (Nov. 1990). 

All would be well, but the defendant and the government 

stipulated that he also was entitled to a two-level reduction for 

his status as a minor participant. IR. doc. 15 at 2. See also 

u.s.s.G. S 3Bl.2. Of course, the stipulation was nonbinding on 

the district court. See United States v. Rutter, 897 F.2d 1558, 

1564-65 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 s. Ct. 88 (1990). The 

district court declined to grant defendant the minor participant 

reduction because defendant owned and drove the modified drug 

courier vehicle and the odor of marijuana plainly was discernible. 

II R. 13. 

We review the district court's legal conclusions concerning 

the Sentencing Guidelines de novo; factual findings are reviewed 

under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Gardner, 

No. 90-2244, slip op. at 7-8 (10th Cir. July 24, 1991) [1991 WL 

134109, *4]; United States v. Caruth, 930 F.2d 811, 816 (10th Cir. 

1991) (duly deferential standard of review in sentencing matters). 

Defendant suggests that the district court erred in applying the 

Guidelines because he was a one-time courier in a single smuggling 

operation carrying a small amount of marijuana. See u.s.s.G. 

1 S 3Bl.2, comment., (n.2). We cannot agree; as a matter of law we 

1 That application note provides: 

It is intended that the downward adjustment for a 

minimal participant will be used infrequently. It would 

be appropriate, for example, for someone who played no 

other role in a very large drug smuggling operation than 

to offload part of a single marihuana shipment, or in a 

case where an individual was recruited as a courier for 

(footnote continued to next page) 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2151 Document: 010110130218 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 2 
J 

I 

have determined that "[t]he fact that a defendant is a courier 

does not necessarily mean that he is a minor participant under 

section 3Bl.2 of the Guidelines." United States v. Pelayo-Munoz, 

905 F.2d 1429, 1430 (10th Cir. 1990). Application of S 3Bl.2 

depends upon culpability, not merely courier status, and we have 

observed "that those who transport marijuana or other controlled 

substances often are not minimal or minor participants." United 

States v. Maldonado-Campos, 920 F.2d 714, 717 (10th Cir. 1990) 

(emphasis supplied); United States v. Mccann, Nos. 90-4109 & 

90-4129, slip op. at 14 (10th Cir. July 26, 1991) [1991 WL 135921, 

* 7]; Pelayo-Munoz, 905 F.2d at 1431 (relying on United States v. 

Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 

S. Ct. 957 (1990)). The district court did not misapply the 

Guidelines. 

A downward adjustment under S 3Bl.2 "is heavily dependent on 

the facts." United States v. Arredondo-Santos, 911 F.2d 424, 426 

(10th Cir. 1990). Obviously, the district court viewed defendant 

as more culpable than a minor participant because of defendant's 

inherent involvement in furnishing the courier vehicle with the 

secret compartment in the gas tank. On almost identical facts, we 

have affirmed a district court's decision not to grant the minor 

participant downward adjustment. See United States v. 

Rios-Ramirez, 929 F.2d 563, 565 (10th Cir. 1991) (defendant was 

(footnote continued from previous page) 

a single smuggling transaction involving a small amount 

of drugs. 

u.s.s.G. s 3Bl.2, comment., (n.2). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2151 Document: 010110130218 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 3 
t 

, 

sole occupant and driver of vehicle with less than fifty kilograms 

of marijuana secreted in door panels). See also United States v. 

Calderon-Porras, 911 F.2d 421, 423 (10th Cir. 1990) (defendant was 

not only the driver, but he also furnished the vehicle; not a 

minimal participant). The district court was not required to 

accept defendant's obviously interested testimony concerning his 

lack of involvement any more than it was required to deem 22.36 

kilograms a small quantity of marijuana. See Rios-Ramirez, 929 

F.2d at 565. The culpability determination is a finding of fact 

and we cannot say that it is clearly erroneous. See United States 

v. Donaldson, 915 F.2d 612, 615 (10th Cir. 1990). 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2151 Document: 010110130218 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 4