Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02110/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02110-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Agustin Becerra-Amador
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FIL · Uoiceds · ED 

races Coun of .A 

Tench c· . ppeaJs ,lfCUJC 

J iJ L 2 ~1 1.cq,, 

- ... '.J 

ROBERT L. HOE 

Clerk CKER 

v . 

No. 89-2110 

(D.C. No. CR 88-474) 

(D. New Mexico) 

JOSE AGUSTIN BECERRA-AMADOR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER,** 

District Judge. 

Defendant Jose Agustin Becerra-Amador pled guilty to 

possession with intent to distribute more than fifty kilograms of 

marijuana in violation of 21 u.s.c. § 841(a)(l) (1988). At the 

conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the district court refused 

to find Becerra-Amador a minor participant in the offense and 

sentenced him to a term of 30 months followed by three years 

supervised release. We affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

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

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

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

36 . 3. 

** The Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, Jr.·, Chief Judge, United 

States District Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-2110 Document: 010110038731 Date Filed: 07/24/1990 Page: 1 
On appeal, Becerra-Amador makes two arguments in opposition 

to the district court's sentencing findings. He first contends 

that the court's fact finding was based on less than a 

preponderance of the evidence and thus violated his due process 

rights. Specifically, he argues that because the Government was 

precluded by the plea agreement from presenting evidence, the 

court should have required the arresting agent to testify instead 

of relying on the hearsay testimony of the probation officer. 

However, Becerra-Amador bore the burden of proof for a sentence 

decrease. See United States v. Oliva-Gambini, No. 89-1312, slip 

op. at 5 (10th Cir. filed July 24, 1990); United States v. Kirk, 

894 F.2d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1990). It was he who was obligated 

to prove his minor participant status by a preponderance of the 

evidence, and nothing precluded him from presenting evidence of 

his role in the offense. Becerra-Amador's due process rights were 

not violated. 

Becerra-Amador's second argument is that the court erred in 

finding he was not a minor participant either as a supplemental 

driver or as the actual driver of the car. An automobile driver, 

actual or supplemental, may or may not be a minor participant in 

an offense, depending on the facts of the case. See United States 

v. Pelayo-Munez, __ F.2d __ , No. 89-2194, slip op. at 4 (10th 

Cir. filed June 15, 1990). Because this is essentially a fact 

question, we review the court's determination under the clearly 

erroneous standard. See id. at 5; Oliva-Gambini, slip op. at 3; 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2110 Document: 010110038731 Date Filed: 07/24/1990 Page: 2 
United States v. Roberts, 898 F.2d 1465, 1468-69 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Becerra-Amador illegally transported over 50 kilograms of 

marijuana into the country. Although he filed an affidavit, he 

chose not to testify at the evidentiary hearing. The district 

court weighed the conflicting evidence as to his role in the crime 

and concluded that he was not a minor participant. On this 

record, we cannot say that the court's finding was clearly 

erroneous. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2110 Document: 010110038731 Date Filed: 07/24/1990 Page: 3