Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02173/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02173-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Arredondo-Santos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

FILED 

United Sr.aces Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 211990 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS &OBERT L. HOECKER 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. No. 89-2173 

ANTONIO ARREDONDO-SANTOS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. 89-017JC-01) 

Presiliano Torrez, Assistant United States Attorney (William L. 

Lutz, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Charles A. Harwood (James B. Fay with him on the brief), Silver 

City, New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Before LOGAN, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 

Mr. Arredondo-Santos having pled guilty to the crime of 

possession with intent to distribute less than fifty kilograms of 

Appellate Case: 89-2173 Document: 01019381298 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 1 
marijuana, appeals his sentence of thirty months. 

Mr. Arredondo-Santos asserts only one issue on appeal, and 

that is did the district court err when it refused to decrease his 

offense level by two levels based upon Mr. Arredondo-Santos' 

contention that he was but a minor participant in the criminal 

activity? 1 

The Government and Mr. Arredondo-Santos entered into a 

written plea agreement, which included a stipulation "that 

pursuant to § 3Bl.2(b), the defendant was a minor participant in 

the criminal activity alleged in the indictment herein." This 

plea agreement further provided that the defendant (Mr. ArredondoSantos) understands that "this stipulation is not binding on the 

Court and that whether or not the Court accepts this stipulation 

is solely in the discretion of the Court after it has reviewed the 

pre-sentence report." 

A presentence report was then prepared and filed, which 

indicated that Mr. Arredondo-Santos was not entitled to a 

reduction of two offense levels for being a minor participant in 

the crime. This presentence report specified the offense conduct. 

It can be summarized as stating that Mr. Arredondo-Santos was 

driving a van, with a passenger, which was stopped at the United 

1 Section 3Bl.2(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for 

decreasing the base offense level by four levels if the defendant 

is classified as a "minimal participant." No such claim is made 

in this case. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2173 Document: 01019381298 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 2 
States-Mexico border. It was subsequently determined that 

concealed within the van was about 100 pounds of marijuana. Mr. 

Arredondo-Santos first claimed that, while he was in Mexico, he 

loaned his van to a man he had met several years ago and that this 

man must have concealed the marijuana in the van with the intent 

of recovering it later. Subsequently, Mr. Arredondo-Santos 

admitted that he knowingly transported the marijuana, which he had 

obtained in Mexico, and the marijuana was destined for Riverside, 

California. 

Mr. Arredondo-Santos filed no written objections to the 

presentence report. Counsel for Mr. Arredondo-Santos said there 

was no need for an evidentiary hearing. He further stated that 

the defendant did not contest the facts as set forth in the 

presentence report. However, Mr. Arredondo-Santos argued at the 

sentencing hearing that he should receive a two-level reduction in 

the offense level. He contended that he was a mere driver and was 

less culpable than the people who purchased and sold the drugs; 

that he was less culpable than the owner of the marijuana; and 

that there was no evidence indicating that he had loaded or 

unloaded the marijuana or that he had concealed the marijuana in 

his van. 

After hearing the arguments of Mr. Arredondo-Santos, the 

court stated~ 

I don't find that a driver 

circumstances is a minimal or minor 

Obviously the system breaks down without 

the defendant to transport the narcotics. 

-3-

under these 

participant. 

people such as 

So I don't 

Appellate Case: 89-2173 Document: 01019381298 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 3 
find that he is a minor participant. 

On appeal, Mr. Arredondo-Santos reiterates the same arguments 

advanced to the district court. The arguments can be summarized 

as stating that Mr. Arredondo-Santos contends that marijuana 

distributing operations usually involve many individuals with 

various responsibilities and that a "courier or mule," whose sole 

function is to drive the marijuana from point A to point B, should 

be classified as a minor participant. 

We first address the stipulation of the parties. Mr. 

Arredondo-Santos correctly makes no argument to this court that 

the stipulation was binding upon the district court. 

Mr. Arredondo-Santos contends that the sentence was imposed 

as a result of an incorrect application of the Sentencing 

Guidelines. We must accept the findings of fact of the district 

court unless they are clearly erroneous. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(d)(2). 

A finding that a defendant is or is not a minor participant is a 

finding of fact. United States v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 

557 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Franco-Torres, 869 

F.2d 797, 800 (5th Cir. 1989)). We give due deference to the 

district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the 

facts. 18 u.s.c. § 3742(e); United States v. Smith, 888 F.2d 720, 

723 (lOth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1786 (1990). 

The facts are undisputed. Mr. Arredondo-Santos was 

apprehended with a quantity of marijuana concealed in his van. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2173 Document: 01019381298 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 4 
Mr. Arredondo-Santos had obtained the marijuana in Mexico and was 

attempting to transport it to California. We will accept Mr. 

Arredondo-Santos' contention that he was a courier. Couriers are 

indispensable to any drug-dealing network. 

Section 3Bl.2(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a 

two-level decrease in the offense level if the defendant was a 

"minor participant in any criminal activity." The commentary 

defines a minor participant as "any participant who is less 

culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be 

described as minimal." Commentary, Application Note 3. 

It is obvious that the decision to utilize this downward 

adjustment is heavily dependent upon the facts. See § 3B1.2 

commentary (background). For this reason, this court will adopt 

no per se rule allowing a downward adjustment due solely to the 

fact that the defendant was a courier of illegal drugs. For cases 

reaching similar conclusions, see Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d at 557-

58; United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 218-19 (4th Cir. 

1989); United States v. Wright, 873 F.2d 437, 442-43 (1st Cir. 

1989); United States v. Nunley, 873 F.2d 182, 186-87 (8th Cir. 

1989); United States v. Gallegos, 868 F.2d 711, 713 (5th Cir. 

1989); United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 137-39 (5th Cir. 

1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1957 (1990). 

When a crime is committed by two or more persons, one will 

almost always have a different level of participation. One may 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-2173 Document: 01019381298 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 5 
have conceived the plan; another may have financed the crime; 

another may have provided automobiles or tools; and yet another 

may be the distributor. To argue that one of these participants 

is more or less culpable than another is not productive. The 

services or contribution of each may be indispensable to the 

completion of the crime. 

The commentary instructs us to weigh the culpability of one 

participant against that of another. Culpability is usually 

defined as being responsible for the wrong or blameworthy. In the 

instant case, the defendant obtained the marijuana and was 

delivering it to California. Assuming there were other 

participants, Mr. Arredondo-Santos cannot complain that he was 

less culpable than the people who sold or purchased the drugs. We 

also note that there exists no evidence in the record that there 

were other participants. When culpability must be weighed, 

evidence must exist of other participants and their role in the 

criminal activity. 

Given these facts, and giving to the district court due 

deference, we cannot say the district court erred. 

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-2173 Document: 01019381298 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 6