UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5121

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

SUSANO SANDOVAL-ROJO, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00378-NCT-7) 

Submitted: September 2, 2009 Decided: September 18, 2009 

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Charles H. Harp, II, CHARLES H. HARP, II, P.C., Lexington, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States 

Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Susano Sandoval-Rojo pled guilty pursuant to a plea 

agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute 100 kilograms 

or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). The district court sentenced him to 108 

months’ imprisonment. Sandoval-Rojo appeals his sentence, 

asserting that the district court erred in refusing to award him 

a downward adjustment for his minor role in the conspiracy. We 

affirm. 

 Appellate review of a district court’s imposition of a 

sentence (whether inside or outside of the Guidelines range) is 

for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). In conducting that review, 

this court 

must first ensure that the district court committed no 

significant procedural error, such as failing to 

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines 

range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing 

to consider the [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) [(2006)] 

factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the 

chosen sentence--including an explanation for any 

deviation from the Guidelines range. Assuming that 

the district court’s sentencing decision is 

procedurally sound, [this] court should then consider 

the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard. When 

conducting this review, the court will, of course, 

take into account the totality of the circumstances, 

including the extent of any variance from the 

Guidelines range. 

Id. at 597. 

2 
 A defendant bears the burden of showing by a 

preponderance of the evidence that he had a mitigating role in 

the offense, see United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 202 

(4th Cir. 1999), and may receive a four-level reduction for 

being a minimal participant if he is “plainly among the least 

culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group.” U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.2, comment. (n.4) 

(2007). This level of culpability is shown by “the defendant’s 

lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of 

the enterprise and of the activities of others . . . .” Id. A 

two-level reduction may be made when a defendant is a minor 

participant; that is, one “who is less culpable than most other 

participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” 

USSG § 3B1.2, comment. (n.5). 

In deciding whether a defendant played a minor or 

minimal role, “[t]he critical inquiry is . . . not just whether 

the defendant has done fewer bad acts than his co-defendants, 

but whether the defendant’s conduct is material or essential to 

committing the offense.” United States v. Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 

646 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Role adjustments are determined on the basis of the 

defendant’s relevant conduct. United States v. Fells, 920 F.2d 

1179, 1183-84 (4th Cir. 1990). We review for clear error a 

district court’s decision regarding a defendant’s role in the 

3 
4 

offense. United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 463 (4th Cir. 

2004). 

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the 

district court did not clearly err because Sandoval-Rojo failed 

to meet his burden of showing that he was less culpable than 

most other participants in the charged conspiracy. The district 

court thus did not commit procedural error in refusing to award 

Sandoval-Rojo a downward adjustment under USSG § 3B1.2(b), and 

Sandoval-Rojo does not challenge the substantive reasonableness 

of his sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED