Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10776/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10776-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nolan Fernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10776

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60212-WJZ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

NOLAN FERNANDEZ, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(October 14, 2015)

Before HULL, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

After pleading guilty, Nolan Fernandez appeals his 129-month sentence for 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of 

USCA11 Case: 15-10776 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 1 of 3
2

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On appeal, Fernandez argues 

that the district court erred in denying his request for a minor-role reduction under 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. After review, we affirm.1

The district court did not clearly err in denying Defendant Fernandez a 

minor-role reduction. In calculating Fernandez’s offense level, the district court 

held Fernandez accountable for only the 6,897 grams of methamphetamine, which 

Fernandez admits he transported from Philadelphia to Fort Lauderdale. In other 

words, Fernandez’s relevant conduct was the same as his actual conduct in the 

drug conspiracy. See United States v. DeVaron, 175 F.3d 930, 940 (11th Cir. 

1999) (en banc) (instructing courts to consider the defendant’s role in relation to 

the relevant conduct attributed to the defendant at sentencing). Thus, Fernandez 

cannot point to the wider drug conspiracy for which he was not held accountable—

including the uncompleted plan to exchange the methamphetamine for cocaine—to 

show his role was minor. See id. at 941.

Fernandez contends his role was minor compared to the role of his codefendant, Jacinto Marte, who was the source of the methamphetamine, arranged 

the drug exchange, and gave Fernandez his instructions. The district court may, 

but is not required to, compare a defendant’s role to the other participants in the 

relevant conduct. See id. at 944. And, a comparison of the defendant’s role 

 

1

“We review a district court’s denial of a role reduction for clear error.” United States v. 

Bernal-Benitez, 594 F.3d 1303, 1320 (11th Cir. 2010).

USCA11 Case: 15-10776 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 2 of 3
3

against his relevant conduct attributed to him “in many cases . . . will be 

dispositive.” Id. at 945.

In any event, the fact that Fernandez may have been less culpable than Marte 

does not mean that Fernandez’s role was minor. See id. at 944 (explaining that it is 

possible to have no minor or minimal participants). In fact, Fernandez’s role in the 

proposed drug exchange was substantial. Not only did Fernandez drive a very 

large amount of methamphetamine from Philadelphia to Fort Lauderdale, he also 

obtained a driver’s license and car registration in his brother’s name to do so, 

texted updates to the confidential source working with investigators during his trip, 

met with an undercover officer at a Starbucks to make the exchange, and, after 

speaking with the undercover officer, he made the decision not to allow the 

undercover officer to inspect the methamphetamine prior to a trade and ended the 

meeting when he became uneasy. While Fernandez stresses that he did not have an 

equity interest in the drugs, he admits he was to be paid $3,000 plus expenses for 

his part in the conspiracy. 

Given the undisputed facts, the district court’s finding that Fernandez played 

more than a minor role in the drug conspiracy was not clear error.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-10776 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 3 of 3