T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1.

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju n e 14, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 1472 S A L V A D O R C H A V E Z -M A G A N A , al so know n as J avi erG ar ci a- M agana , D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C. N o. 05 - CR - 39 1- F) ( D . C ol or ado)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e BRI S CO E, EBEL, and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned u n a n im o u slyth a t o ra l ar g u m e n t w o u ld n o t m a ter iallya ss ist in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is appea l . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s , ther efor e, o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. D efe ndantSal vadorC havez - M agana ( C havez - M agana ) appea l s hi s s ent ence of 135 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entt o be fol l ow ed byfi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. C havez -- 2-

M agana pl ed gui l tyt o know i ngl yand i nt ent i onal l ypos s es s i ng w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e a quant i tyof 500 gr ams orm or e of a m i xtur e ors ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a det ect abl e amount of m ethamphet ami ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) . H e ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed pl ai n err ori n fai l i ng t o su a sp o n te gr anthi m a tw o- l evel r educt i on i n hi s bas e off ens e l evel pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2 beca us e he w as a mi nor part i ci panti n t he cr i m e forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f

f i r m. I. D ur i ng the exe cut i on of a s ear ch w arr anti n A ugus tof 2004, s peci al agent s fr om the B ur eau of

I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( I C E ) di s cover ed a c oncea l ed compar t m entcont ai ni ng drugs i n t he bas ementof the r es i dence w her e i tw as bel i eved C havez - M agana w as the s ol e occ upant . T he age nt s al s o found a f i r earm and amm uni t i on in C h a v e z -M a g a n a ’s re s id e n c e . C havez - M agana w as i ndi ct ed i n Sept emberof 2005 on one c ountof pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e 500 gr ams orm or e of a m i xtur e ors ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a det ect abl e amountof m ethamphet ami ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) . I n Februaryof 2006, the governm entfi l ed not i ce of i t s i nt entt o r el yon s ent ence enhanc ementfac t or s pr ovi ded i n 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) and 851. I n J ul yof 2006, C havez - M agana pl ed gui l tyt o the s i ngl e counti n hi s i ndi ctm entpur s uantt o a pl ea agr eementw i th t he governm ent . Pur s uantt o the pl ea a gr eement , C havez - M agana agr eed t o pl ead gui l tyt o t he i ndi ctm ent , w i thdr aw al l pendi ng m ot i ons , for fei thi s i nt er es ti n a- 3-

fi r earm and amm uni t i on found dur i ng the s ear ch of hi s pr emi s es , and pr ovi de the g o v e rn m e n t w ith in f

o rm a tio n . In e x c h a n g e , the g o v e rn m e n t ag re e d to w ith d ra w its pr evi ous l yfi l ed not i ce of i nt entt o s eek s ent enci ng enhanc ement s , r ecomm end a s ent ence atthe l ow es tend of the appl i cabl e advi s orygui del i ne r ange, and eva l uat e the i nform at i on p ro v id e d b yC h a v e z -M a g a n a f o r a p o te n tia l d e p a rt u re m o tio n p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 o r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (e ). A pr es ent ence r eport( PSR ) w as fi l ed and r eport ed thataft erappl i cat i on of a thr ee- l evel adj us t m entforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , C havez - M agana ’ s adj us t ed o ff en se lev el w as 3 3 an d h is cri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryw as I, r esu lt ing in an ad v isory gui del i ne r ange of

135- 168 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent . N ei therpartyfi l ed obj ect i ons t o the s e n te n c e g u id e lin e c a lc u la tio n s e t f o rt h in th e P S R . A t C h a v e z -M a g a n a ’s s e n ten c in g h e a rin g , the g o v e rn m e n t re p o rte d th a t itw o u ld notm ove fora dow nw ar d departur e pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1 or18 U . S. C . § 3553( e) beca us e C havez - M agana had notbeen “ candi d” i n pr ovi di ng i nform at i on and had “mi s s t at ed, i f notw or s e, w hatthe fa ct s w er e. ” R ecor d on A ppeal , V ol . I V at5. T he governm ents t at ed thatC havez - M agana “di d admi tonl ythathe w as i n pos s es s i on of the m ethamphet ami ne” a nd the governm ent“as s um e[d] ther e i s s om eone outther e expe ct i ng paym entors om e form of compensa t i on forthos e drugs . ” I d. at5- 6. T he courtadopt ed th e u n c h a llen g e d g u id e lin e c a lcu latio n f ro m th e P S R a n d se n ten c e d C h a v e z -M a g a n a to 135 m onths of i m pr i s onm entand fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e.- 4- II. C havez - M agana conce des thathi s couns el fai l ed t o ar gue thathe w as ent i t l ed t o a tw o- l evel r educt i on as a mi norpart i ci pantpur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2. I ns t ead, he ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourts houl d have i nferr ed fr om the governm ent ’ s r efus al t o m ove f o r a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re p u rsu a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 th a t h e w a s a m in o r p a rticip a n t in the cr i m i nal act i vi tyi nves t i gat ed bythe governm ent . H e cl ai m s thatbeca us e he c oul d not pr ovi de s uffi ci enti nform at i on t o as s i s tthe governm ent ’ s i nves t i gat i on of a l ar gerdrug c o n sp ira c y , the c o u rt sh o u ld h a v e in f e rre d th a t h e w a s a m in o r p a rticip a n t, w h o m e re ly stored d rug s fo r som eo n e e lse. In li g h t of d ef en se c o u n sel’s an d the g o v ern m en t’ s sta tem e n ts re g a rd in g th e a p p lica tio n o f § 5 K 1 .1 , h e a ss e rts th a t th e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld have su a sp o n te ap p li ed § 3 B 1 . 2 to red u ce h is ba se o ff en se lev el an d that the c o u rt ’s fai l ur e t o do s o w as unr eas onabl e. W e r evi ew an al l eged e r r ori n s ent enci ng r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al for pl ai n err or . U ni t ed St at es v. W hi tney , 229 F. 3d 1296, 1308 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . “Pl ai n err or occur s w hen ther e i s ( 1) err or , ( 2) thati s pl ai n, w hi ch ( 3) aff ect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and w hi ch ( 4) s er i ous l yaff

ect s the fa i r nes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al p ro c e e d in g s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . G o n z a le z -H u e rt a , 4 0 3 F .3 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A d e f e n d a n t b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t h e is ent i t l ed t o a r educt i on i n bas e off ens e l evel pur s uantt o § 3B 1. 2. U ni t ed St at es v. O n h e ib e r, 1 7 3 F .3 d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 5 8 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T h e g o v ern m en t argu es th at be ca u se § 3 B 1 . 2 is i n ap p li ca b le t o C h av ez -M ag an a’s- 5-

c a s e , n o e rr o ro c c u r r e d a n d Ch a v e z - M a g a n a f a i l s th e f i r s te l e me n to f

p l a i n e rr o rr e v i e w. S e c tio n 3 B 1 .2 (b ) p e rm its a c o u rt to re d u c e a d e f e n d a n t’s b a se o f

f e n se lev e l b ytw o lev e ls if “ th e d e f e n d a n t w a s a m in o r p a rt ic ip a n t in a n yc ri m in a l a c tiv ity.” U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 (b ). T hi s s ect i on can appl yt o “a de fenda ntw ho pl ay s a parti n comm i t t i ng the off ens e that m akes hi m s ubs t ant i al l yl es s cul pabl e than the ave r age pa r t i ci pant . ” U ni t ed St at es v. S a laz a r-S a m a n ieg a , 3 6 1 F .3 d 1 2 7 1 , 1 2 7 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (c iti n g U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 c m t. n . 3 (A ) (20 0 2 )). T o d eterm ine w h ethe r a m ino r role red u cti o n w il l app ly , the d istri ct co u rt m us t“foc us upon the def endant ’ s know l edge orl ack ther eof c oncerni ng the s cope a nd s tructur e of the ent erpr i s e and the ac t i vi t i es of other s i nvol ved i n the off ens e. ” I d. (c itatio n s o m itt e d ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e c o m m e n tar yp ro v id e s th a t “th is g u id e lin e is notappl i cabl e unl es s m or e than one pa r t i ci pantw as i nvol ved i n the off ens e. ” See U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 , c m t. n .2 (2 0 0 2 ); S a la z a r- S a m a n ie g a , 3 6 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 7 . T he governm entas s ert s thatbeca us e C havez - M agana w as the onl yper s on char ged w i th o r convict ed o f t he o ffen se ati ssue, this provis i on w hich necessar i l yrequi res a compar i s on of cul pabi l i tycannotappl yher e. I n addi t i on, the governm entar gues thatt he recor d co ntai ns no factual s up po rtfor C hav ez-M agan a’s cl ai m s, w hich ar i se for the fir st t i m e on appe al , thatot heri ndi vi dual s w er e i nvol ved i n the off ens e. T he governm ent not es thatC havez - M agana pl ed gui l tyt o pos s es s i on of m ethamphet ami ne thatw as found i n the bas ementof a r es i dence w her e he w as the s ol e occ upant . See U ni t ed St at es v. Pat t er s on, 472 F. 3d 767, 783 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( concl udi ng thatdi s tr i ctcourtdi d not cl ear l yerri n r efus i ng t o appl y§ 3B 1. 2 beca us e ther e w as no evi dence pr es ent ed that- 6-

defe ndantw as partof a drug di s tr i but i on r i ng and the def endantw as the ow nerand dr i ver o f v eh icl e w h ere d rug s w ere fo u n d ). F in a lly , the g o v e rn m e n t als o a rg u e s th a t a d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to g ra n t a r educt i on i n offe ns e l evel under§ 3B 1. 2 i nvol ves fac tual fi ndi ngs , w hi ch ar e s ubj ectt o a defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew on appea l . W e have pr evi ous l ynot ed that“[w ] hen a f a c tu a l issu e is n o t ra ise d b e lo w , the re is n o re c o rd o n w h ich to b a se o u r re v iew ” a n d h e ld gener al l ythat“ques t i ons of fa ctcapa bl e of r es ol ut i on bythe di s tr i ctcourtupon pr oper obj ect i on ats ent enci ng can ne vercons t i tut e pl ai n err or . ” U ni t ed St at es v. B us h, 405 F. 3d 9 0 9 , 9 2 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). A lth o u g h w e d o n o t ag re e w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t th a t a d e f e n d a n t w h o is th e o n ly p e rso n c h a rg e d o r c o n v icte d in c o n n e c tio n w ith a c rim in a l o p e ra tio n is n e c e ss a rily i nel i gi bl e forthe mi norpart i ci pantadj us t m ent , i n thi s cas e ther e w as no evi dence that otherper s ons w er e i nvol ved i n t he off ens e t o w hi ch C havez - M agana pl ed gui l ty . W e ther efor e hol d t hat§ 3B 1. 2 cannotappl y . Fur ther , beca us e C havez - M agana fai l ed t o put for th anyevi dence on thi s i s s ue, ther e i s no fac tual r ecor d forus t o r evi ew t o det erm i ne w hetherhe w as ent i t l ed t o a r educt i on i n offe ns e l evel pur s uantt o § 3B 1. 2. T o the ext ent C havez - M agana ar gues thathi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e, w e have hel d thata s ent ence w i thi n the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange i s pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e. U ni t ed St at es v. T e rre ll, 4 4 5 F .3 d 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 6 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). C h a v e z -M a g a n a h a s f a iled to re b u t th is p re s u m p tio n .- 7- I V. W e A F F IR M th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge