# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 22 37

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Jo se Ram on Delg ad o- Gay ta n, al so kn own as S au l Es tra da -Alv arez

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 9 , 20 18
Fi le d: Ju ly 26, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Jo se Ram on Delg ad o- Gay ta n pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of po ss es si on wit h

in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 gr am s or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C.
§ 84 1( a)(1 ). Befo re se nt en ci ng , th e Uni te d St at es Pro ba ti on Offi ce pr ep ared a

pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (“ PSR” ), reco m m en di ng a to ta l of

fen se le ve l of 35

,

a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of III, an d an ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge of 21 0 t o 2 6 2mon th s. Delg ad o- Gay ta n ob jecte d to th e cal cu la ti on s. He arg ue d th at he qu al ifi e d

fo r a two -le ve l “ m in or pa rti ci pa nt ” red uc ti on be cau se he was m erel y a co ur ie r of th e
dr ug s. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 (b ). The di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d th e ob jecti on , fin di ng 1

th at Delg ad o- Gay ta n was an av erag e pa rti ci pa nt

. It acce pt ed th e gu id el in es ran ge as

s e t f or th in th e PSR an d se nt en ced hi m to 21 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Delg ad o

Gay ta n n ow ap pe al s, ra is in g t hr ee ch al le ng es to hi s s en te nc e. W e aff irm.

F i rs t, Delg ad o- Gay ta n arg ue s th at he sh ou ld rece iv e a two -le ve l “ m in o r

pa rti ci pa nt ” red uc ti on un de r U.S.S.G § 3B 1.2 (b ). W he th er a de fen da nt was a m in or

pa rti ci pa nt is a qu es ti on of fact rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Y ou ng , 68 9

F.3 d 94 1, 94 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). A m in or pa rti ci p a n t “p l ay s a pa rt in co m m it ti ng th e
of fen se th at m ak es hi m su bs ta nt ia ll y le ss cu lp ab le th an th e av erag e pa rti ci pa nt .” Se e
U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2

, cm t. n.3

. A de fen da nt ’s st at us as a co u r i er of dr ug s do es “ no t

ne ces sa ril y m ean he is le ss cu lp ab le th an ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s” ; rat he r, he ha s th e bu rd en
of pr ov in g th at he is le ss cu lp ab le

. Uni te d St at es v. Ca rr az co , 91 F.3 d 65

, 67 (8 th Ci r.

19 96 ). In de ed

, whe n a de fen da nt is “ ap pr eh en de d in po ss es si on of a ve ry su bs ta nt ia l

am ou nt of dr ug s,” we co ns id er it “a ci rcu m st an ce th at te nd s to su gg es t th at hi s

pa rti ci pa ti on in th e cri m in al en te rp ris e was it se lf v ery su bs ta nt ia l.” Id

.

Here, po li ce arre st ed Delg ad o- Gay ta n aft er a co nf id en ti al in f

or m an t (“ CI”)

rep or te d th at he was reg ul arl y tra ns po rti ng la rge qu an ti ti es of m et ha m

ph et am in e fro m
Okl ah om a to Mi nn es ot a an d was st at io ne d at a ho te l in Mi nn es ot a wit h dr ug s fo r sa le

. Offi cers co nd uc te d a co nt ro ll ed pu rch as e, th ro ug h a CI, of 1.1 ki lo g r a ms of

m et ha m ph et am in e an d th en ex ecu te d a se arch warra nt on Delg ad o- Gay ta n’s ho te l

ro om an d h i s v e h i cl e. In si de th e ho te l ro om an d ve hi cl e, th ey fo un d, am on g ot he r
th in gs , el ev en br ic ks of m et ha m ph et am in e (wei gh in g ap pr ox im at el y fif te en po un ds ),

a di gi ta l sc al e, th ree id en ti fic at io n card s, ni ne cel l ph on es , an d m is cel la ne ou s

The Hon or ab le Jo an N. Eric ks en , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1
of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-p a c k a gi ng m at eri al s. Delg ad o- Gay ta n ad m it te d to tra ns po rti ng m et ha m ph et am in e
fro m Cal ifo rn ia to Mi nn es ot a fo r th e pu rp os e of di st rib ut in g th e dr ug s, so m e of whi ch

were in te nd ed fo r an un kn own co co ns pi rat or who wou ld di s t r i b ut e th e dr ug s in

W is co ns in

. Giv en th es e un ob jecte d- to fac t s , t he di st ric t co ur t reject ed Delg ad oGay ta n’s arg um en t t h a t h e w a s m erel y a m in or “ ru nn er” or “ dr iv er’ of th e dr ug s.

In st ead

, th e co ur t fo un d th at whi le it was “ tru e th at he tra ns po rte d dr ug s,

. . . th at was

on ly pa rt of wha t he di d,” an d it no te d th at “ th e m ere tra ns po rta ti on of th e dr ug s do es

no t tra ns fo rm an av erag e pa rti ci pa nt in to a c o ur ie r.” On th e ba si s of th is ev id en ce,
th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in de nyin g Delg ad o- Gay ta n’s req ue st fo r a m in or

ro le red uc ti on

. Se e Y

ou ng , 68 9 F .3d at 9 46 ; Ca rr az co , 91 F.3d at 6 7.

Seco nd

, D e l ga do -Gay ta n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al

erro r by fai li ng to co ns id er th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) se nt en ci ng fact or s an d fai li ng to

ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e se nt en ce. The di st ric t co u r t i s no t req ui red to reci te each
§ 35 53 (a) fact or , b ut it m us t be cl ear fro m th e reco rd th at it act ua ll y co ns id ered th e
fact or s in de te rm in in g th e se nt en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Fry

, 79 2 F.3 d 88 4, 89 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 15 ). Delg ad o- Gay ta n co nc ed es th at he di d no t pr es erv e th is ob jecti on be lo w, so

we rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. Se e id

. To pr ev ai l un de r th e pl ai n- erro r st an da rd

, Delg ad oGay ta n m us t sh ow th at th ere is (1 ) an erro r (2 ) t h a t is pl ai n an d (3 ) th at affe ct s

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. Uni te d St at es v. Ola no , 50 7 U.S. 7 2 5

, 7 3 2 (1 99 3)

. Onc e th os e
th ree co nd it io ns ha ve be en m et

, we ha ve di sc ret io n to co rrec t th e erro r if it “ se rio us ly

affe ct s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Id

. (al te rat io n o m it te d)

.

At se nt en ci ng , th e d i s t r i c t co ur t co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, an d it s

ex pl an at io n of th e se nt en ce was no t pl ai nl y i n a d e q u a t e

. Co nt rary to Delg ad oGay ta n’s as se rti on th at th e “ co ur t di d no t di sc us s a si ng le § 35 53 (a) fact or ,” it is cl ear
fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at io n th at it co ns id ered th e na tu re and ci rcu m st an ces
of th e of fen se as well as t he hi st or y an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e de fen da nt

. The co ur t

hi gh li gh te d Delg ad o- Gay ta n’s cri m in a l h i s t or y , th e fact th at he was on su pe rv is ed

-3

-rel eas e at th e ti m e of th e in st an t of fen se , an d th e q u a n t i t y a nd pu rit y of th e dr ug s
in vo lv ed in th is of

fen se

. On th is reco rd

, t h e co ur t fo un d th at th e se nt en ce was

su ffi ci en t bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry

. Thu s, Delg ad o- Gay ta n’s se co nd arg um en t

fai ls

. Se e Fry , 79 2 F .3d at 8 91

.

Fina ll y , Delg ad o- Gay ta n arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nti ve ly unr ea sona ble

be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to gi ve su ffi ci en t weig ht to m it ig at in g fact or s an d

ga ve to o m

uc h weig ht to hi s cri m in al hi st or y an d th e am ou nt of dr ug s in vo lv ed in th e

un de r l y in g of

fen se

. W e rev ie w t he su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce un de r
th e d efer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard

. Gal l v. Unit ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1 (2 00 7)

. W e m ay co ns id er a se nt en ce wit hi n th e gu id el in e s r an ge , li ke Delg ad oGay ta n’s, to be pr es um

pt iv el y reas on ab le

. Se e id

. Here, Delg ad o- Gay ta n di sc us se d

th e m it ig at in g fact or s at le ng th in hi s se nt en ci ng m em or an du m an d at th e se nt en ci ng
he ari ng

. Acco rd in gl y , we pr es um e th e se nt en ci ng co ur t co ns id ered th es e arg um en ts

. Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n , 61 9 F

. 3 d 91 0, 92 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Mo reo ve r, as no te d

ab ov e, th e di st ric t co ur t care fu ll y co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. W e se e no ba si s
fo r fin di ng th e se nt en ce un reas on ab le an d th us co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t

ab us e it s d is cret io n.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm Delg ad o- Gay ta n’s wit hi n- gu id el in es

se nt en ce.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-