08 -3 40 4- cr

United States v. Delacruz , UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RULI NGS BY S UM M ARY ORD ER DO NOT H AVE P RECE DENT I AL EF F ECT . CI TAT I ON TO S UM M ARY O R D E R S F IL E D A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1 , 2 0 0 7 , IS P E R M IT T E D A N D IS G O V E R N E D B Y T H IS C O U R T 'S L OC AL R ULE 3 2 . 1 AND F E DE RA L R UL E OF A P P E L L AT E P RO CE DU RE 3 2 . 1 . W HE N CI T I NG A S UMM AR Y OR DE R I N A DOC UMEN T F I L E D W I T H T HI S C OU RT , A P AR T Y M US T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F EDE RAL AP P ENDI X OR AN EL ECT RONI C DAT ABAS E ( W I TH T HE NOT ATI ON " S UM M ARY OR DE R" ) . A P AR T Y C I T I NG A S UMM AR Y OR DE R MUS T S E RV E A C OP Y OF I T ON A NY P AR T Y NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. 1 At a stated t erm of the United States Court of Appea ls for the Second Circuit , held at the 2 Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on 3 the 13 day of April, two thousand te n.

th 4 5 PRESENT : 6 7 DENNIS JAC OBS, 8 Chief Judge , 9 10 GU ID O C AL AB RE SI , 11 DEBRAANN LIVING STON, 12 Ci rcu it J ud ges. 13 14 15 16 UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA, 17 18 Ap pe lle e , 19 20 -v. - No . 0 8-3 40 4-c r 21 NAC 22 ADOLFO DELACR UZ, 23 24 De fen da nt- Ap pe lla nt. 25 26 27 LE V L . D AS SIN, Ac tin g United St ate s A tto rne y f

or t he So uth ern 28 Districtof New York (Loyaa n A. Egal and Michael A. Levy, 29 Assistant Unit ed States Att orneys, of c ou ns el), for Ap pe lle e . 30 31 BEVERL Y VAN N ESS, New York, NY , for Defendant- Appellant .2

1 2 3 UPON D UE CON SIDERATION , it is her eby ORDERE D, ADJUD GED, and DEC REED 4 that the j udgment of the district court be AFFIRMED. 5 Defendant-Appellant Adolfo Delacruz appeals from a December 13, 2007 judgm ent of the 6 United States DistrictCourt for the Southern Dis trictof New York (Jones, J .), e nte red

after his 7 co nv ict ion

fo r co nspiracy to dis tri bute and po sse ss w ithint ent to dis tri bute o ne kil og ram or m ore 8 of h e ro in , 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 6 , an d d is tr ib uti o nan d

p o s s e s s io nw it

hinte nt t o d is tr ib ute o n e k il og ram 9 or more of heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 821, 841(a)(1), 841(b)( 1)(A). The district court sentence d Delacruz 10 to a

57 -m onth t erm

of im pri so nm ent an d f

ive ye ars of su

pe rvi sed rele ase . W e as sum e th e p art ies ’ 11 fam ili ari ty w iththe fa ctu al and pro ced ura l hi sto ry o f t

he case , to whic h we ref

er on ly a s n ece ssary 12 to explain ourdecision. 13 De lac ruzfi rst ch all en ge s as pro ced

ura l er ror the di str ict

court’ s dec isi on

not t o award h im 14 a f

our-l ev el m ini m al r ole ad

jus tm ent un de r th e Unit ed St ate s S enten cin g Guid eli ne s, an d to ins tea d 15 aff

or d hi m a t wo-level minor role adj ustment. Se e U. S. S. G. § 3 B1 .2 . G en era llysp eak ing , we 16 revie w a s en te nce for proc edural and subs tantive r easonablenes s under an abuse of disc retion 17 standard. Un ite d S tates v . C av era , 1 80 F. 3d

18 0, 18 7, 18 9 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ) ( en banc ). “ On ce w e ar e 18 sure that [a] sentence resulte d from the reasoned exercise of di screti on, we must defer heavily to the 19 expe rti se o f d istric t ju dg es. ” Id. at 1 93 . W ithreg ard to t he sp eci fi c is su e o f r ole ad jus tm ents, 20 however, “[t]his Circuithas not always bee n consistentin descri bing the s ta nd ard of review,” 21 Un ite d Sta tes v. Go tti , 45 9 F. 3d 2 96 , 34 9 (2 d C ir. 20 06 ), accord United Stat es v. Labbe , 588 F.3d 22 13 9, 14 4 n .2 (2d

Ci r. 20 09 ), so m eti m es ind icatin g that whe the r ci rcum stanc es c on sti tut e “m ini m al” 23 or “minor” part icipati on in a crime represe nts a legal question re quiring more searchi ng, deno vo3

1 review, see Un ite d S tates v . C ar pe nte r , 2 52 F. 3d

23 0, 23 4 (2 d C ir.2001) ( ci ti ng Un ite d S

tates v . 2 Gaston , 68 F.3d 1466, 1468 (2d Cir. 1995) (percuriam)), but on otheroccasions conc luding thatthe 3 pro pri ety

of rol e a d ju s tm e nts rep re s ents a

fa ctu al d ete rm inatio n re qu iri ngrev iewon ly f or c lear er ror , 4 seeUni ted

States v . B ru ns hte in , 3 44 F. 3d 91 , 1 02 (2d

Ci r. 2 00 3) (

citing United States v. Castano , 5 23 4 F. 3d

1 11 , 11 3 (2d

C ir. 2 00 0)) , at lea st in cas es wh ere th e iss ue o n ap pe al can be viewed as 6 “primarily factual, ” in t ha t the defendant “basic ally devote [s] [his] argum ent to disa greeing - by 7 ref ere nc e to oth er e vid en ce - wi th t he dis tri ct c ourt’ s d ete rm inatio n. ” Go tti , 4 95 F.3 d at349 . We 8 need not decide which standard i s appropria te in thi s case, becaus e even under the more rigorous 9 of them, w e would find no error i n the distr ict court ’s decisi on. 10 “The defendant bears t he burden of establi shing by a preponderance of the evidence thathe 11 is e nti tl e d to a m iti gatin g ro le a dju stm ent un de r se cti on 3B 1. 2 o f t he Se nte nc ingGu ide lin es. ” Un ite d 12 Sta tes v. Ca rp en ter , 2 52 F. 3d 23 0, 234 (2d Cir .2 00 1). A m ini m al r ole ad jus tm ent “i s inten de d to 13 cover defend an ts wh o ar e plainly among the leastculpable of those i nvolved in the c onduct of a 14 group” and “the de fendant’s lack of knowledge or under standing of the scope and structure of the 15 enterpri se and of the acti vities of others is indicative of [ such] a role.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.4. 16 Meanwhil e, a m ino r parti cip ant is on e who “is les s cu lpa ble than m os t ot

he r parti cip ants, but who se 17 rol e co uld

n ot be d esc rib ed

a s m ini m al. ” Id. cmt. n.5. Thus, in reviewing a district court’s deci sion 18 reg ard inga m iti gatin g ro le a dju stm ent, 19 we are m ind fu l th at a senten cin g court' s as ses sm ent of the de fe nd ant' s ro le i n 20 criminal activi ty is highl y fac t- speci fic and depends upon the nature of the 21 de fen dant 's r el at io ns hi p t o o th erpart ic ip an ts , the imp orta nc e o f the de fen dant 's 22 actions t o the success of the venture, and the de fendant's awareness of the nature and 23 sco pe of

the cri m ina l enter

pri se. 24 25 Ca rp en ter , 2 52 F. 3d at 2 34 (inter

na l qu otatio n m ark s, bra ck ets , and cit ati on om itt ed ).4

1 De lac ruzfa ile d to pro ve that he wa s entit led to a fo ur- po int

red uc tio n in h is o ff

en se l ev el a s 2 a m ini m al p art icipant. He ack no wl ed ge d th at h e v olu

ntaril y s ou ght to tra

ns po rt h ero in t o th e si te 3 of the planned sale, and tha t he knew that i t was heroin that he was carrying. Before this court , he 4 rel ies prim ari ly on the as ser tio ns : (1) that he w as le ss cu lpa ble than his co -de fe nd ants, in t

hat he ha d 5 no prior invol vement with illegal drugs, did not plan the transaction t hat resul ted in his c onviction, 6 and only became involve d after “fortuitousl y” arriving at t he loc ation where the drugs wer e being 7 pre pared

fo r sa le; an d (2 ) th at h is i nv olv em ent w as n ot e sse nti al t o th e en su ingdrugtrans act ion , in 8 that his c o-defendants would have ca rr ie d th e drugs to the tr ansaction s ite themselves had he not 9 vo luntee red

to d o s o. Ye t as he a ck

no wl ed ge s, “ co uri er status ” do es no t a uto m ati cal ly entit le h im 10 to even a minor role adjustment, m uch less an adjustment for a minim al role. Se e U nited Sta tes v. 11 Shonubi , 99 8 F. 2d 8 4, 9 0 (2d

C ir. 1 99 3). To the co ntr ary , th is C ourt h as o n s ev era l oc cas ion s u ph eld 12 the de nia l of

su chad jus tm ents t o th os e who only playe d th e ro le o f c ourie r. See United S tates v . 13 G a rci a , 920 F.2d 153 , 1 54 -55 (2d Ci r. 1 99 0); Shonubi , 9 98 F. 2d at 9 0. Th e ev ide nc e at

tri al, 14 m ore ov er, d em on str ate d De lac ruz ’s kn ow led ge o f bo th “th e sco pe and s tru cture of

the enter pri se” 15 forwhi chhe wa s ev en tu al lyc on vi ct edand“ th e ac ti vi ti es o f o th er s” wh o part ic ip at edi n the sc he me 16 – kn owledge not genera lly associ ated with tha t of a minim al parti cipant. Se e U. S. S. G. § 3B1.2; 17 Un ite d S

tates v . L aV

alley , 999 F.2d 663, 665 (2d Cir. 1993). Finally, we are not persuaded by the 18 argument that Delacruz ’s role wa s insi gnificant becaus e the drugs coul d have been carr ied by 19 so m eo ne els e. Th is o bs erv ati on , e ve n if tru e, wo uld

ap pe ar t o a

pp ly t o m os t couriers, and yet 20 transport ing narcoti cs to the poi nt of sale is often es sential to the comm ission of the cr ime. Se e 21 Ga rci a , 920 F.2d 153, 155 (2d Cir. 1990) (noting that “[c] ouriers a re indispe nsable to the smuggling 22 an d d eli ve ry o f d

rug s an d the ir pro cee ds ”). W e th ere fo re c on clu de that th e d ist ric t co urt did no t er r5

1 in d ete rm ini ngthat, a lth ou ghD ela cruz playe d a m ino r r ole in th e dru g co ns pir acy

an d s ale in t

his 2 cas e, his rol e w as n ot m ini m al. 3 Delacruz’s next argues t hat his sent ence was s ubstantive ly unreasonabl e. We review the 4 sentence i mposed by a distri ct c ourt for substa ntive unreasonable ness under an abus e of discreti on 5 stand ard , “ set [t ing ] a si d e a d is tric t c o urt ’s s u

b s tantiv e d ete rm inatio n o nly in e xc ep tio na l ca ses wh ere 6 the tri al c ourt’ s d eci sio n c anno t be lo cat ed w ith in the rang e of

p erm iss ibl e d eci sio ns .” Ca vera , 550 7 F.3d at 189. “[W ]e take i nto ac count t he tot ality of the circumstances, givi ng due deference to t he 8 senten cin g jud ge ’s e xe rci se o f d isc ret ion , and be ari ngin m ind

the ins tit uti on al a dv antag es o f d istric t 9 co urt s, ” id. at 190, and “consi der whether the length of the sent ence is re asonab le i n li ght of the 10 fa cto rs o utl ine d in 18 U. S. C. § 3 55 3(a ).” Un ite d S tates v . R attob all i , 452 F.3d 127, 132 (2d 11 Cir.2006). 12 Delacruz charact erizes his crime as involving a “single rash act,” Appllant’s Br. at13, and 13 ob ser

ve s th at h e rec eiv ed

a senten ce s ub stanti all y lo ng er t han o ne of

his co -de fe nd ants who playe d 14 a gre ate r r o le . T h e d is tr ic t c o urt , h o w e v e r, e xp re s s ly c re d it e d th e im p u ls iv e an d

a p p are ntly 15 uncharacte risti c nature of Delacruz’s decis ion to comm it his cr imes when weighing the section 16 3553(a) factors . And while “secti on 3553(a)(6) requires a distri ct court t o consi der nationwide 17 sentence di spariti es, . . . [it] does not requi re a district court to conside r dispari ties between co18 de fe nd ants. ” United States v. Frias , 5 21 F. 3d 22 9, 23 6 (2 d C ir. 200 8). To the ex tent th at d if fe ren ces 19 in the sent ences rece ived by Delacruz and his co-de fendants ar e re levant, we note that the defendant 20 to whom he points by way of comparison c ooperated with the government and receive d credit for 21 his substant ial assi stance, while another, more culpable c o-defendant who (like Delacruz) di d not 22 cooperate r eceived a l onge r se nt en ce of 87 m onths. We see no abuse of discreti on in the below-6

1 Guidelines se ntence thatDelacruz re ceived. 2 W e have carefull y considered Del acruz’s r emaining arguments and find them to be w ithout 3 merit. For the foregoing rea sons, the judgment of the distr ict courtis AFFIRMED. 4 5 FOR THECOURT : 6 Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk 7 8 9