FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 30 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12376 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -004 38 -C R -C A P -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s O L A N R E W A J U E T I S A N O L O R U N T O B A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 30, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d B IR C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O n N o v e m b e r4 , 2 0 0 4 , ap p e lla n t, an a r c o tic s c o u r ie r , p le d g u ilty to b o thAppe lla nt b rought t

hesu bje c t dr ug s into t heUnite d State s o n a

fl ight f ro m Ca rac a s, 1 Vene zuela to Atlanta, Georg ia. The dr ug s werein 65 pellets he had swallowed. Appellant wa s taken to an Atlanta hospital wherehe expelled the pellets. Theweight of the heroin was 830.9 gra ms. 2 co u n t s o f an i n d i ctm en t : C o u n tO n e, p o ssessi o n w i th i n t en tt o d i stri b u t e atl east 7 0 0 g r a m s o f

am ix tu r e o rs u b s ta n c e c o n ta in in g h e r o in , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , a n d C o u n t T w o , im p o r tin g th e s a m e 7 0 0 g r a m s in to th e U n ite d S ta te s , in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 95 2(a) and 9 60 (b)( 2)(A ). O n A pri l 14 , 20 05 , the di stri ct 1 c our ts e nt e nc e d appe l l a ntt o c onc urr e ntpr i s on t e rm s of 63 m onths . H e now ap p eal s h i s sen t en ces, co n t en d i n g th atth e d i stri ctco u rt , i n d et erm i n i n g h i s o ffen se le v e l, e rr e d in d e n y in g h im am in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 ( b ) . A thi s s ent enci ng hear i ng , appel l antar gu ed thathe w as ent i t l ed t o a m i no rr o le r e d u c tio n b e c au s e h e w a s n o t p a id ag r e a t a m o u n t o f m o n e y in c o m p a r is o n to th e v a lu e o f

th e d ru g s in v o lv e d , a n d th e r e m ig h t h a v e b e e n o th e rin d iv id u a ls in L ondon, N i ge r i a , a nd A t l a nt aw ho w e r e m or e c ul pabl e tha n he w a s f ors m uggl i ng th e d ru g s . T h e r e a f

te r , th e f o llo w in g e x c h a n g e to o kp la c e : [ C ourt ] : . . . I don’ tthi nk tha tape r s on tha t ’ s done w ha the

ha s done i n thi s c a s e c a n j us tbe gi ve n am i nor r o le . I m e a n , I u n d e r s ta n d y o u rp o s itio n w ith resp ectt o th i s. [D ef ense coun se l ] : C an I a sk, i s i t- - [C ou rt ] : H e i s the i m po rt er . [ D e f e ns e c ouns e l ] : I w a ntt o c l a r i f y thi s . T ha tbe c aus e he i s the pers on do i ng the i m po rt at i on , never can h e be [ si c] am in o rr o le ? A n yb o d y th a t im p o r ts , p h y s ic a lly3 i m port s c a n ne ve rge tam i norr ol e unde rthe i m po rt at i on st atut e? [C ou rt ] : Y eah. I’ l l go there . [ D e f e ns e c ouns e l ] : T ha nk y ou. [ C o u rt]: A ll r ig h t. [G ov ernm ent ] : Judg e, for the re cord, and ant i ci pat i ng an appeal

fr o m [th e d ef

en d an t] . [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l]: C o rr e c t. [ G o v e rn m e n t]: W ith r e s p e c t to th e r o le o f th e o th e rp a r tic ip a n ts in thi s c ons pi r a c y , i s the C our tf i ndi ng tha tthe d e f e n d a n t h a s n ’t s h o w n th a t h e h a d a n y le s s e rr o le tha n the s e othe rpe opl e w ho he ha s i de nt i f i e d? [ C o u rt]: I a g r e e w ith th a t s ta te m e n t. I th in ky o u rp o in t is

w e ll- ta k e n . I ’ll a g r e e w ith th a t. “T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s is s u b je c t to d e n o v o rev i ew o n ap p eal , w h i l e i t s factu al fi n d i n g s m u stb e accep t ed u n l ess c l e a r l y e rr one ous . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J or di , 418 F . 3d 1212, 1214 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( q u o ta tio n s a n dc ita tio n s o m itte d ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , ( U .S . D e c . 5 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( N o . 0 5 - 7 3 8 0 ) . S p e c if ic a lly , w e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te rm in a tio n o f ad e f e n d a n t’s r o le in th e o f f e n s e f o rc le a re rr o r . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . D e V ar o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1999) . A de f

e nda nt“ w ho i s l e s s c ul pabl e tha n m os tothe rpa r t i c i pa nt s , but w hos e r ol e c oul d notbe de s c r i be d a s m i ni m a l ” i s e nt i t l e d t o atw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on f orhi s m i norr ol e . U . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2( b) , c om m e nt . ( n. 5) . “ T he pr opone ntof the d o w n w a r d a d

ju s tm e n t . . . a lw a y s b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g am itig a tin g r o le in the offens e by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence. ” D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d at93 9. In de t e rm i ni ng the de f

e nda nt ’ s r ol e , the de c i s i on f a l l s w i thi n the s ound di s c r e t i on of4

the di s tr i c tc ourt : “ atr i a l c ourt ’ s c hoi c e be tw e e n ‘ tw o pe rm i s s i bl e vi e w s of the e v i d e n c e ’ i s th e v e ry e s s e n c e o f th e c l e a re rr o rs t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. ” I d . a t9 4 5 . As l ong a s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on i s s uppor t e d by the r e c or d, the s e nt e nc i ng j udge n e e d n o t m a k e s p e c if

ic s u b s id ia ry f

a c tu a l f in d in g s r e g a r d in g th e d e f e n d a n t’s r o le in the of f e ns e . I d. a t939. L a s t l y , ha rm l e s s e rr ori s appl i e d t o s e nt e nc i ng c a s e s , a nd r e m a nd i s unne c e s s a ry , i f the pa rty de f

e ndi ng the s e nt e nc e pe r s ua de s us tha tthe d istrict co u rt w o u ldh av e im p o se d th e s am e s en ten ce ab se n t th e d istrict co u rt’s e rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 503 U . S . 193, 203, 112 S . C t . 1112, 1120, 1 1 7 L .E d .2 d 3 4 1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . In D e V ar on , w e e st abl i shed a tw o-partt es tt o d et erm i ne w hether a m i t i gat i ng -r ol e r educt i on i s app ropri at e. S ee D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d at94 0-45 . In ap p ly in g th e f

ir s t p r o n g , “th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m u s t m e a s u r e th e d e f e n d a n t's r o le a g a in s t th e r e le v a n t c o n d u c t f o rw h ic h [ h e ] h a s b e e n h e ld a c c o u n tab le .” I d . a t 9 4 0 .

“ [ W ] he n adrug c our i e r ’ s r e l e va ntc onduc ti s l i m i t e d t o [ hi s ] ow n a c tof i m po rt at i on , a di stri ctcourtm ayl egi t i m at el y c on cl ud e thatthe couri erpl ay ed an im p o r ta n t o re s s e n tia l r o le in th e im p o r ta tio n o f th o s e d ru g s .” I d . a t 9 4 2 - 4 3 . F u rth erm o re, “ i n th e d ru g co u ri er co n t ex t , [] th e am o u n to f d ru g s i m p o rt ed i s a m at er i al consi dera t i on i n ass es si ng a def endant ' s r ol e i n [hi s] re l evantcond uct . ” I d . a t 9 4 3 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) .5

In th e seco n d p ro n g o f th e D e V aro n an al ysi s, th e d i stri ctco u rtm ay assess a de f e nda nt ’ s r e l a t i ve c ul pabi l i ty vi s - a - vi s “ othe rpa r t i c i pa nt s i n the r e l e va nt cond uct . ” I d. at94 4. “ T he cond uctof part i ci pant s i n any l ar ger c ri m i nal c ons pi r a c y i s i rr e l e va nt . ” I d. H ow e ve r , “ [ t ] he f a c ttha tade f

e nda nt ’ s r ol e m a y be l e s s tha n tha tof

othe rpa rt i c i pa nt s e nga ge d i n the r e l e va ntc onduc tm a y notbe di s pos i t i ve of

[ hi s ] r ol e i n the of

f e ns e , s i nc e i ti s pos s i bl e tha tnone a r e m i noror m in im a l p a rtic ip a n ts .” I d . W he r e , a s he r e , ade f

e nda ntdoe s notc ha l l e nge the f a c tua l s t a t e m e nt s i n the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), he adm i t s t o tho se fa ct s. S ee U ni t ed S ta te s v . S h e lto n , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . F ur the rm or e , ade f

e nda nt ’ s a l l e ga t i ons m a de dur i ng s e nt e nc i ng a r e i ns uf f i c i e nton the i row n t o w a rr a ntam i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K ape l us hni k, 3 0 6 F . 3 d 1 0 9 0 , 1 0 9 5 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) (ci t at i o n s o m i tt ed ) (h o l d i n g th atd efen se c ouns e l ’ s m e r e a l l e ga t i ons dur i ng s e nt e nc i ng di d notc ons t i tut e as uf f i c i e nt e vi de nt i a ry ba s i s upon w hi c h t o gr a ntadow nw a r d de pa r tur e unde rthe s e nt e nc i ng g u id e lin e s ) . T h e r e c o r d in th is c a s e s u p p o r ts th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f am in o r - r o le re du ct i on because app el l antoffe re d n o fac tual basi s upo n w hi ch t o con cl ud e that hi s a ctual cond uctw as any di ff er entthan the re l evantcond uctfor w hi ch he w as6

h e ld a c c o u n tab le . S e e D e V a r o n , 1 7 5 F .3 d a t 9 4 0 - 4 1 . F ir s t, h e f a ile d to o b

je c t to the pr e s e nt e nc e r e port , a nd thus a dm i tt e d tha the i m por t e d a tl e a s t700 gr a m s of heroi n. S ee S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d at13 30 . S ec on d, hi s m er e a l l egat i on s thathe w as no tpai d a greatam ou ntof m on eyi n com pari son t o the val ue of the drug s, and that others m ayhave been m ore c ul pabl e than h i m for s m ug gl i ng the drug s, ar e i nsuffi ci entt o p rove thathe w as ent i t l ed t o a m i no r- rol e r educt i on . S ee K apel ushn i k, 30 6 F . 3d at10 95 . T hu s, the courtdi d n otcl earl y e rri n fi nd i ng that he ha d f a i l e d t o m e e te i the rpr ong of the m i t i ga t i ng r ol e t e s t , a nd w a s thus not q u a l i f i e d f o ram i n o r - r o l e r e d u c t i o n . S e e De Var o n , 1 7 5 F . 3 d a t9 3 9 ; U. S . S . G. § 3 B 1 .2 ( b ) , c o m m e n t. ( n . 5 ) . T o the e xt e nttha tthe c ourte rr e d i n hol di ng, a s am a tt e rof l a w , tha tadrug co u ri er can n ev er q u al i fy fo r a m i n o r-ro l e red u ct i o n , th i s erro r i s h arm l ess b ecau se appel l anthad o therw i se fa i l ed t o est abl i sh el i gi bi l i ty f or the re du ct i on . S ee W illia m s , 5 0 3 U .S . a t 2 0 3 , 1 1 2 S .C t. A t 1 1 2 0 . AF F I RME D.