F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 28, 20 08 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1405 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 14 05 4- CR-DLG UNITED STAT ES OFAMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ARTURO CLARO, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(J ul y 28 , 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: A rt ur o C laro ( “ D ef

en dant” ) ap pe al s hi s 18 -m onth se nte nc e fo r co nspi ra cy to m anuf ac tur e, dis tr ibu te , and d isp en se m ar ij uanaplants in vio latio n of 21 U . S. C. §§ 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) an d8 4 6 . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm.2

D ef en dant and 1 8 othe rs w er e ch ar ge d ina16- co unt sup er se din g in dic tm en t for cr im es arising from

a conspiracy

to grow and to sell m arij uana. Athree-day j ur y tr ia l w as he ld; but

w he n th e j ur

y de ad loc ke d, the dis tr ic t c ourt de cl ar ed a m istri al . R athe r than su

bm it to a r e- tr ia l, D ef

en dant p le d gu ilty

to Co unt 15 o f the indictm ent for conspiracy to m anufacture, distribu te, and disp ense 100 or m ore m ar ij uanaplants . Ac cording to th e presentence investig ation report (“ PSI ”), De fendant wa s responsib le for 565 plants and 9 .98 kilogram s of m arij uana (equivalent to a total of 66 .48 ki lo gr am s o f m ari

juan a) fo un d a t v ari ou s l oc at io ns . Purs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the PSI set De fendant’ s base offense level at 22. Bec ause a fir earm wa s fo und at D ef en dant’ s r es ide nc e, the of fe nse le ve l w as inc re as ed by tw o, pur suant to s ec tio n 2D 1. 1( b) (1 ). A s ar es ult , the tot al of fe nse le ve l w as 24. B ec au se D ef en dant h ad

no c ri m ina l hi sto ry

poi nts , his G uid el ine s r an ge w as ini tia lly cal cu la te d a t 5 1 t o 6 3 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Pu rs ua ntto 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(B) , ho wev er, Defe nd an t’s s ta tu to ry m in im um sen te nc e was fiv e y ears . A cc or din gly , his G uid el ine s r an ge w as a dj ust ed upw ar d ina cc or danc e w ith U . S. S. G . § 5G 1. 1( c) (2 ) an d se t at 60 to 63 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t. D ef en dant o bj ec te d to the P SI on s ev er al gr ound s. I n r es pons e to D ef en dant’ s ob

j ec tio ns, the G ove rn m en t a gr ee d to hol d D ef en dant r es pons ibl e3

onl y f or the 322 plants loc at ed

a t the r es ide nc e w he re he w as stay ing and f or 29 additio nal plants harvested at anoth er location. The G overnm ent further a greed not to ch al le nge D ef

en dant’ s e lig ibi lity

f or r el ie f unde r the sa fe ty -v al ve pr ovi sio n of U. S. S. G. § 5C1.2; and it also conceded that Defe ndant sh ouldrec eive a se nte nc e re duc tio n f

or a cc ep tanc e of

r es pons ibi lity . A t the se nte nc ing he ar ing , D ef en dant arg ue d th at

he w as e nti tle d to am ino r- ro le r ed uc tio n of tw o le ve ls unde r U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2. D ef en dant a sse rt ed

that he w as inv olv ed

in the conspiracy

for a “ relatively

short period of tim e” and that other co-c onsp irators w er e m or e inv olv ed . D ef en dant a lso c la im ed

that he did

not own th e plants or

the hous e w he re the y

w er e gr ow n and tha t he m er el y “ he lpe d c ult ivate ” the plants al on g wi th ot he r co -co ns pi rat or s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d D ef en dant’ s r eque st f

or am ino r- ro le a dj ustm en t ba se d onit s f

ind ing that D ef

en dant w as “pe rs ona lly

r es pons ibl e” f

or the 322 plants a t hi s r es ide nc e an d f or the f ir earm loc at ed the re . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso determ ined that Defe ndant’s involvem ent was substantial com pared to m any

other participants in th e conspiracy . Af ter considering all the evidence, the district court fo und that D ef

en dant h ad

be eninv olv ed

in the c onsp ir ac y

f or f our to six w ee ks and that he had been responsi ble for 322 m arij uana plants. A s a result, the court se t the of fe nse le ve l at 15 and c al cu late d th e Guid el ine s r an ge to be be tw ee n 184

and 20 m onth s’ im

prisonm ent. B ased on the factors listed in 18 U.S .C. § 3553 (a), the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed D ef en dant t o 18 m onths i n pr iso n, ase nte nc e at the low end of the Guidelin es range. The sole issue that De fendant raises on appeal is whether the district court erre d in deny ing hi s request for a m inor-role adj ustm ent. D efendant contends th at his role was m inor because he did notown the plants or the hous e where they we re gr ow n, he did

not se t the hou se up f

or gr ow ing the plants , he part ic ipate d inthe co nspi ra cy

f or onl y f our to six w ee ks, and h e ne ve r re ce ive d paym en t f or his inv olv em en t i n th e co nspi ra cy . D ef en dant a lso arg ue s th at

he w as le ss c ulp ab le th an th e o th er co -co ns pi rat or s i n t he ho us e, es pe ci al ly the own ers . D ef en dant b ears the bur de n of e sta bli shi ng h is r ole by

apr ep onde ranc e of th e ev id en ce. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Ry an , 28 9 F .3d13 39 , 13 48 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). A court’ s decision abo ut “ a role a djustm ent is prem ised on a case-by -case factual inquir y . ” I d. T w o e le m en ts are c onsi de re d inde te rm ini ng whe the r a de fe ndant m erits a m inor-role reduction. F irst, the district court m ust cons ider “ whether a defendant’ s particular role w as m inor in relation to th e re levant condu ct attributed to h im in ca lc ulatin g hi s ba se of fe nse le ve l. ” I d. Adownw ar d a dj ustm en t m ay be ap pli ed onl y if the de fe ndant p lay ed

ar el at ive ly

m ino r ro le in the c ondu ct f or w hic h th e de fe ndant h as a lr ea dy be enhe ld a cc ount ab le : “ not am ino r ro le in any5

larg er c ri m ina l c onsp ir ac y . ” I d. a t 13 48- 49. T he se co nd e le m en t, if r ea ch ed ,

“ requires the district court to assess a defendant’ s relative culpability vis-a-vis that of any other participants.” Id. at 1349 . A district court’ s determ ination of a defendant’ s role in an offense is a f indin g of fact that is re viewed only for cle ar error . United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). W e ar e unc onvi nc ed

that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed c le ar e rr or in fi ndi ng that D ef en dant p lay ed

m or e than am ino r ro le in the r el ev an t c onsp ir ac y . O n th e re co rd be fo re us, th at

D ef en dant h as f

ai le d to satis fy

the f ir st e le m en t of

the m inor-role reduction analy sis is clear. A lthou gh m any m ore plants wer e involv ed in the c onsp ir ac y , the dis tr ic t c ourt se t D ef en dant’ s of

fe nse le ve l ba se d on ly

on the 322 plants f

ound a t the r es ide nc e w he re he w as li vin g. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing that Def endant was “personally

responsibl e” f

or those plants is am

ply suppo rted by the reco rd . Defen da ntha s ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t h e “ he lp edcu lt iv at e” t he pl an ts . In addition , te stim ony

offer ed by

the Governm ent showed that Def endant lived wher e the plants wer e grown f or at least “ several w eeks” and that he helped ha rv es t t he pl an ts . Inthe li ght

of the se f ac ts, it appe ar s th at

the c ondu ct

a ttr ibu te d to D ef

en dant fo r se nte nc ing pur

pose s – n am el y , that he he lpe d c ult ivate the 322 m ar ij uana plants a t hi s r es ide nc e – is ide nti ca l t o hi s a ct ua l c ondu ct . A t the ve ry

le as t, the6

ro le D ef en dant p lay ed

a t hi s r es ide nc e – e ve n if not ide nti ca l – w as c er

ta inl y not m inor in relation to th e conduct attributed to him . W e conclude, there fore, that D ef en dant h as not

m et his bur de n of

e sta bli shi ng “ that [ he ] play ed ar el at ive ly m ino r ro le in the c ondu ct f or w hic h [ he ] ha s a lr ea dy

be enhe ld a cc ount ab le ” an d that, a s ar es ult , he is not

e nti tle d to adownw ar d a dj ustm en t. S ee Ry an , 289 F . 3d at 134 8- 49 ( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks o m itt ed ). B ec au se D ef en dant h as f

ai le d th e fi rs t e le m en t of

the m ino r- ro le r ed

uc tio n ana ly sis , w e ne ed

not c onsi de r the se co nd. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to de ny D ef en dant a m ino r- ro le a dj ustm en t was no t cl ear e rro r. AFFIR MED.