Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02170/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02170-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amaro Calderon-Porras
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tench Circuit 

AUG 21 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2170 

AMARO CALDERON-PORRAS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. 89-091JC-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. Foy on the brief), Silver City, New 

Mexico, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Before LOGAN, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 

Amaro Calderon-Porras pled guilty to one count of unlawfully 

and intentionally importing less than fifty kilograms of marijuana 

in violation of 21 u.s.c. § 952(a), and§ 960(a)(1) and (b)(4). 

Appellate Case: 89-2170 Document: 01019381249 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 1 
Mr. Calderon-Porras appeals only his sentence, asserting that 

he should have been classified as a "minimal participant" and thus 

have received a lesser sentence. 

I 

The Sentencing Guidelines provide for decreasing the offense 

level by four levels if the defendant was a "minimal participant 

in any criminal activity." Sentencing Guidelines§ 3B1.2. 1 

The term "minimal participant" is not defined by the 

Sentencing Guidelines. The commentary, however, provides that the 

four-level decrease "applies to a defendant who plays a minimal 

role in concerted activity. It is intended to cover defendants 

who are plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the 

conduct of the group." § 3B1.2., Application Note 1. In 

determining whether or not the defendant's role in the offense 

merits being classified as a minimal participant, the commentary 

instructs us to focus upon "the defendant's lack of knowledge or 

understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise and of 

the activities of others." Id. The commentary clearly indicates 

that "the downward adjustment for a minimal participant will be 

used infrequently." Id. Note 2. 

1 It should be noted that § 3B1.2(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines 

provides for a two-level decrease in the offense level if the 

defendant was a "minor participant." No contention has been made 

in this case that appellant should be so classified. 

Consequently, we do not address the questions associated with this 

determination. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2170 Document: 01019381249 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 2 
When we review a determination by the district court that a 

defendant is or is not a minimal participant, we are reviewing 

whether or not the district court correctly applied the Sentencing 

Guidelines to the factual findings. A finding that a defendant is 

or is not a minimal participant is itself a finding of fact, not a 

legal conclusion. 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 must accept the findings of 

fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous. 18 

u.s.c. § 3742(d)(2). 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). 

II 

Mr. Calderon-Porras contends the district court should have 

classified him as a minimal participant, thereby entitling him to 

a reduction of four offense levels and a lesser sentence. 

We look first to the facts. The presentence report describes 

the conduct of the offense in detail. Paragraph 9 of the 

presentence report describes the significant details as follows: 

During interview, subsequent to arrest, Amaro CalderonPorras stated that approximately one week prior to the 

arrest date, he had met a man in Palomas, Mexico. He 

indicated the man had requested that Amaro purchase an 

AR-15 rifle which he was to deliver to the man in 

Palomas. The man then gave Calderon $600 in currency 

for that purpose. Mr. Calderon related that on January 

28, after purchasing the rifle per the man's 

instructions, he, Oscar and Jesus Martinez-Mercado, 

departed from Alamogordo en route to Palomas, to deliver 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2170 Document: 01019381249 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 3 
the firearm. Following their arrival, they met the man 

in a Palomas bar and delivered the weapon to him. 

According to Calderon, the man spoke to each of the 

three of them separately. The man offered Calderon 

$1,000 to transport 12 kilograms of marijuana, which he 

was to deposit in a dumpster behind a grocery store in 

Deming, New Mexico. Thereafter, the man instructed him 

to proceed to the port of entry and meet his two 

friends, along the highway, who would already have the 

marijuana. Calderon was informed by the man that he 

would be paid $1,000 upon his return to Palomas, after 

the marijuana had been delivered. Calderon related that 

because of the delay occasioned by the search of his 

vehicle at the port of entry, Jesus and Oscar MartinezMercado concealed the marijuana in a conduit near the 

highway, and proceeded to walk back towards the port of 

entry. After he was allowed to depart from the port of 

entry, Calderon picked up Oscar and Jesus then returned 

to Mexico through the port of entry. 

The presentence report further sets forth that Oscar MartinezMercado was to be paid separately by the man in Palomas to assist 

in taking the marijuana to Deming and that Jesus Martinez-Mercado 

was expecting to be paid by his brother. The presentence report 

concluded that Mr. Calderon-Porras did not qualify for status as a 

minimal participant because his involvement appeared to be more 

extensive than was the codefendants', the Martinez-Mercado 

brothers. 

At the sentencing hearing, counsel for Mr. Calderon-Porras 

specifically agreed with the factual statements contained in the 

presentence report but argued that his client was recruited for a 

single smuggling operation involving a small amount of drugs and 

his role was only that of a courier. The district court found 

that Mr. Calderon-Porras was not entitled to the four-level 

reduction as a minimal participant. The court then imposed a 

sentence at the lower edge of the Guideline range, because the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2170 Document: 01019381249 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 4 
amount of marijuana was small and Mr. Calderon-Porras was a firsttime offender. 

Mr. Calderon-Porras first argues that this was his first 

attempt at smuggling marijuana, and further that the "actions of 

the three defendants were analogous to a group of unsophisticated 

and amateur type smugglers," akin to "something that you would see 

at a Three Stooges Film Festival." Mr. Calderon-Porras contends 

that these facts indicate that he was a minimal participant. 

However, the commentary to the Guidelines directs us to focus upon 

the defendant's knowledge or lack thereof concerning the scope and 

structure of the enterprise and of the activities of others 

involved in the offense. Criminal skill or lack thereof is not a 

factor to be considered in determining whether or not someone is a 

minimal participant; neither is a defendant's criminal experience 

or lack thereof. 

Mr. Calderon-Porras next cites the example of a "minimal 

participant" contained in the commentary to § 3B1.2. The 

commentary indicates that the downward adjustment for a minimal 

participant would be appropriate "for someone who played no other 

role in a very large drug-smuggling operation than to off-load 

part of a single marijuana shipment, or in a case where an 

individual was recruited as a courier for a single smuggling 

transaction involving a fsmall amount of drugs." Commentary, 

Application Note 2. Mr. Calderon-Porras contends that he is the 

one-time courier described in the commentary. In making this 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-2170 Document: 01019381249 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 5 
assertion, Mr. Calderon-Porras 

Calderon-Porras was not only the 

furnished his own automobile 

overlooks certain facts. 

driver of the automobile, 

for the smuggling operation. 

Mr. 

he 

Mr. 

Calderon-Porras also recruited or furnished his two friends, the 

Martinez-Mercado brothers, to "walk" the marijuana across the 

border. Mr. Calderon-Porras knew the quantity of marijuana to be 

smuggled and knew its destination. While the commentary indicates 

that some couriers may appropriately receive classification as 

minimal participants, it does not mandate this result for all 

couriers. United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th 

Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1957 (1990). A drugsmuggling operation has many participants; some may purchase, some 

may transport, some may distribute, and some may sell. All are 

indispensable to the operation. It would be unproductive to 

debate which function is the more culpable. It is for this reason 

the commentary directs us to focus upon the defendant's knowledge 

and the activities of others. The ultimate determination of 

whether or not a defendant is entitled to be classified as a 

minimal participant is heavily dependent upon the facts of each 

case, and each case must be judged separately. The mere fact that 

a defendant is a courier in a drug-smuggling operation does not 

entitle that defendant to be classified as a minimal participant. 

The concerted activity in the case before us was that of smuggling 

marijuana from Mexico to Deming, New Mexico. Viewed in this 

context, Mr. Calderon-Porras' conduct in such activity was not 

that of a minimal participant. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-2170 Document: 01019381249 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 6 
We must give 

application of the 

due deference to the district 

facts to the Sentencing Guidelines. 

court's 

In this 

case, the district court determined that Mr. Calderon-Porras 

not entitled to be classified as a minimal participant. 

exists more than ample evidence in the record to support 

was 

There 

this 

conclusion. Moreover, the result is consistent with that reached 

by other circuits. ~' Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d at 557; 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); 

Buenrostro, 868 F.2d at 137-38. 

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-2170 Document: 01019381249 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 7