United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 19-1152

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JUAN CARLOS CASTILLO-VAZQUEZ,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge] 

Before

Lynch, Thompson, and Kayatta, 

Circuit Judges.

Fernando O. Zambrana Avilés and Colon Serrano Zambrana, LLC

on brief for appellant.

W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, Mariana E. BauzáAlmonte, Assistant United States Attorney, and Julia M. 

Meconiates, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for 

appellee.

April 16, 2021
- 2 -

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Juan Carlos Castillo-Vazquez was 

caught 39 nautical miles south of Puerto Rico smuggling 900 

kilograms of cocaine into the United States on a 30-foot vessel. 

The district court sentenced him to 135 months' imprisonment. 

Castillo appeals his sentence on the grounds that the district 

court erred in refusing to grant a two-level reduction to his 

offense level based on his allegedly minor role in the offense or 

a departure based on Castillo's family ties and responsibilities. 

We affirm. 

I.

On March 1, 2018, a Caribbean Air Marine Branch Maritime 

Patrol Aircraft observed a thirty-foot vessel loaded with packages 

travelling at high speed south of Ponce, Puerto Rico. The U.S. 

Coast Guard intercepted the vessel, seized thirty packages of 

cocaine weighing approximately 900 kilograms, and arrested the 

three men on the vessel. Castillo was one of these crew members. 

On March 7, 2018, Castillo was charged with conspiracy 

to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of 

cocaine on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70502, 70503, and 70506, aiding 

and abetting in the possession with intent to distribute five 

kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70502, 

70503, and 70506, and conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute for the purpose of unlawfully importing more than five 
- 3 -

kilograms of cocaine into the United States in violation of 

21 U.S.C. §§ 959, 960, and 963. Castillo pled guilty on all 

charges. 

The Probation office filed an initial Presentence Report 

("PSR") which calculated Castillo's advisory guidelines range to

be 168 to 210 months' imprisonment and did not identify any grounds 

for a departure. The PSR was amended after Castillo participated

in a safety-valve debriefing, which earned him a two-level 

reduction resulting in a guidelines range of 135 to 168 months. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). 

On January 14, 2019, Castillo filed a sentencing 

memorandum requesting that the court impose the statutory 

mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months' imprisonment and arguing 

that Castillo should receive a two-level reduction under USSG 

§ 3B1.2(b) for his minor role in the offense and a downward 

departure from the guidelines range in light of his familial ties 

and responsibilities under USSG § 5H1.6. The government did not 

file a sentencing memorandum. 

At the sentencing hearing on January 24, 2019, Castillo 

presented the arguments in his sentencing memorandum and the 

government advocated for a middle-of-the-guidelines sentence of 

150 months' imprisonment. The district court then confirmed that 

it had read Castillo's sentencing memorandum and explained its

calculation of the guidelines sentencing range. It sentenced 
- 4 -

Castillo to 135 months' imprisonment -- the bottom of the 

guidelines range -- on each count, to be served concurrently, and 

five years of supervised release. It stated that "a sentence at 

the lower end of the guideline range reflects the seriousness of 

the offense, promotes respect for the law, protects the public 

from further crimes by Mr. Castillo, and addresses the issues of 

deterrence and punishment." 

After the sentence was announced, Castillo requested 

that the district court explain why it did not grant a reduction

under USSG § 3B1.2(b) for Castillo's minor role in the offense or

a departure under USSG § 5H1.6 based on Castillo's family ties and 

responsibilities. As to Castillo's role in the offense, the 

district court explained that under the First Circuit decision in 

United States v. Arias-Mercedes, 901 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018), "a 

minor role shall not apply in cases such as this" and that there 

was "no way" that Castillo did not know "that there were 900 kilos 

of cocaine on the vessel." As to Castillo's family ties and 

responsibilities, the court stated that it "considered that and 

didn't think it was sufficient for a reduction." Castillo objected 

to these findings and timely appealed. 

II.

Castillo argues again on appeal that the district court 

procedurally erred by failing to apply an adjustment for his role 
- 5 -

in the offense and a departure based on his family ties and 

responsibilities.1

We review claims of sentencing error for abuse of 

discretion. Arias-Mercedes, 901 F.3d at 5. Within that standard, 

we review findings of fact for clear error, the interpretation and 

application of the sentencing guidelines de novo, and judgment 

calls for abuse of discretion. United States v. Reyes-Torres, 979 

F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2020). 

A. The Minor Role Adjustment

USSG § 3B1.2(b) authorizes a two-level reduction in a 

defendant's offense level if he was a "minor participant in any 

criminal activity" for which he is being sentenced. A defendant 

must show that he is "substantially less culpable than the average 

participant in the criminal activity." Id. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(A). 

"Role-in-offense determinations are notoriously fact-specific" and 

"absent a mistake of law, battles over a defendant's status . . . 

will almost always be won or lost in the district court." AriasMercedes, 901 F.3d at 5 (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

1 Castillo also summarily states that these denials 

constituted substantive error. He has waived this argument by 

failing to adequately address the issue. United States v. Zannino, 

895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) ("[I]ssues adverted to in a 

perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed 

argumentation, are deemed waived."). 
- 6 -

Castillo argues that the district court committed 

procedural error both by denying the minor role adjustment and by 

failing to explain "in a satisfactory manner . . . why it declined 

to grant the [] adjustment." These arguments fail. 

As to Castillo's first argument, the district court did 

not err in denying Castillo a minor role adjustment. Here Castillo 

was one of a three-member crew on a small vessel and the amount of 

drugs was large. As explained in Arias-Mercedes, "[w]hen a person 

undertakes to provide material assistance in transporting a large 

quantity of drugs as a member of a tiny crew in a hazardous voyage 

at sea, it ordinarily will not be clear error for the sentencing 

court to refuse him a mitigating role adjustment." 901 F.3d at 8. 

Arias-Mercedes also forecloses Castillo's argument that the 

district court should have considered Castillo's role in the larger 

drug conspiracy rather than his role in transporting this 

particular batch of drugs, and the argument that Castillo was 

entitled to a minor role adjustment simply because he was not the 

captain of the vessel. See id. at 6.

We also reject Castillo's argument that the district 

court's explanation was insufficient. There is no requirement 

that the district court must list expressly the factors enumerated 

in Application Note 3(C) when it denies a defendant a minor role 

reduction. See United States v. Mendoza-Maisonet, 962 F.3d 1, 24-

25 (1st Cir. 2020). The district court's comparison to Arias-
- 7 -

Mercedes and the statements that Castillo must have been aware of 

the quantity of cocaine on board were sufficient to "allow for 

meaningful appellate review" of the denial of the downward 

adjustment. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). 

B. The Family Ties and Circumstances Departure

Castillo next argues that the district court erred in 

refusing to grant a departure under USSG § 5H1.6 based on his 

"family ties and responsibilities." "As a general rule, a 

sentencing court's discretionary refusal to depart is 

unreviewable." United States v. Sanchez, 354 F.3d 70, 76 (1st 

Cir. 2004). Where, as here, the district court "knew he had the 

power to depart but deliberately chose not to do so," "we are 

foreclosed from second-guessing the court's discretionary decision 

not to depart from the [guidelines range]." United States v. 

Teeter, 257 F.3d 14, 30 (1st Cir. 2001); see also United States v. 

Louis, 300 F.3d 78, 81 (1st Cir. 2002) ("[A] district court's 

decision rejecting a downward departure is largely 

unreviewable."). Castillo is not entitled to relief on this 

ground.

III.

Affirmed.