FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 22, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 25 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :1 0- cr-0 00 14 -RS- LB-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us BRENDA LEE MCCALLISTER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 22 , 20 10 ) Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Bren daLee McC al li st er ap pe al s h er s en te nc e o f 12 8- m on th s’ im pr is on m en t aft er p le ad in g g ui lt y

un de r 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 to co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te an dpo ss es si on wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te m or e th an50 0 g ram s o f a m ix tu re an d

subs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng m etha m ph et am in e, an d m or e th an50 gra m s o f actua l
m etha m ph et am in e. On ap pe al , sh e arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt co m m it te d c le ar erro r by den y in g h er re qu es t fo r a ro le reduc ti onpu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2. Sh e b el ie ve s t ha t t he reco rden ti tl es he r to a fo ur -le ve l re du ct io n a s a m in im al pa rti ci pa ntin th e co ns pi racy, or, al te rn at iv el y , a two -le ve l re du ct io n a s a m in or pa rti ci pa nt . W e d is ag ree a ndaffi rm . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a ro le reduc ti on forcle ar erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Bern al -Ben it ez , 59 4 F .3d13 03 , 13 20 (11 th Cir .), cer t. d en ie d , 13 0 S .Ct. 21 23 (20 10 ). “ [T]he p ro po ne ntof t he do wnwar d a dju st m en t b ears th e b ur de n a t al l t im es of e st ab li sh in g h er ro le in th e o ffen se by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce.” Uni te d Sta te s v. De Va ro n , 17 5 F .3d93 0, 9 34 (11 thCir . 19 99 ) (en ba nc ). The d is tri ctco urt n eedno t m ak e an y sp eci fic or s up pl em en ta l fi nd in gs pr io r to it s u lt im at e d eci si onon a de fen da nt ’s rol e in anoff en se . Id . at 9 39
. Gen eral ly, a d efen da ntis res po ns ib le forhe r own act s an d t ho se reas on ab ly fo res eeab le act io ns tak enby oth ers in furth eran ce o f th e joi nt ly und ert ak en cri m in al act iv it y . Se e U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .3(a )(1 )(B) . Neverth el es s, a d efen da ntm ay

2be en ti tl edto a ro le reduc ti onun de r U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2. Thes e reduc ti on s ar e 1
av ai labl e fo r de fen da nt s wh o p art ic ip at e in th e und erl y in g o ffen se in su ch a way th atm ak es th em

“su bs ta nt ia ll

y le ss cu lp ab le th anth e av erag e p art ic ip an t.” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2, cmt. n .3(A) (em ph as is ad de d)
. Und er § 3B 1.2 (a),“ m in im al pa rti ci pa nt [s ]” are el ig ib le fora fo ur -le ve l reduc ti on . This ap pl ie s t o t ho se de fen dant s t ha t ar e “pl ai nl y am on g t he lea st cu lp ab le ” o f th os e in vo lv edin th e g ro up act iv it y . U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 (a), cmt. n .4. It c anbe in ferr edth ata de fen da ntis a m in im al parti ci pa ntif s he lac ks an un de rs ta nd in g o f th e o pe rat io n o f th e o rg an iz at io n a ndth e act iv it ie s o f ot he rs . Se e id . Suc h re du ct io ns are t o b e g iv en“ in freque nt ly.” Id
. A “ m in orpa rti ci pa nt ” m ay be gra nt eda two -le ve l re du ct io n. U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2(b ). Suc h ade si gn at io n i s ap pr op ria te if ade fen dantis “ le ss cu lp ab le th an m os t o th er p art ic ip an ts , bu t [h er] rol e co ul d n otbe de sc rib edas m in im al .” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2, cmt. n .5.

In full, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 re ads: 1 Ba sed on the de fenda nt's r ole in the offe nse, dec rea se the off ense level as f ollows: (a) I f the de fenda

nt was a minimal participa nt in any criminal activity , decr ease by

4 levels. (b) I f the de fenda

nt was a minor pa

rticipant in any

criminal activity , decr ease by

2 levels. In case s fallingbetwee n (a) and (b) , decr ease by 3 levels. 3The pro ces s fo r an al y zi ng whet he r a d efen dantsh ou ldrece iv e a § 3B 1.2

reduc ti on is well set tl ed
. De Var on , 17 5 F .3dat 9 34
.

“ Fi rs t an d fo rem os t, th e di st ric t co urt m us t m eas u re th e d e fen da nt ’s ro le ag ai ns t he r rel ev an t co nduc t, th at is , th e co nduc t fo r whi ch sh e ha s be e n h e l d acco un tabl e un de r U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .3. Th e Gui de li ne s an d ou r cas e pr eced en t pl ai nl y requi re th e di st ric t co urt to un de rta ke th is m et ho d of an al ys is in ev ery cas e whe re a ro le ad jus tm en t is at is su e. Seco nd , whe re th e reco rd ev id en ce is su ffi ci en t, th e di st ric t co urt m ay al so m eas ur e th e de fen da nt ’s co nduc t ag ai ns t th at of ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s in th e cri m in al sc he m e at tri bu te d to th e de fen da nt . The se pr in ci pl es ad va nc e bo th th e di rect iv es of th e Gui de li ne s an d ou r cas e pr eced en t by reco gn iz in g th e fact -in te ns iv e na tu re of th is in qu iry an d by m ax im iz in g th e di sc ret io n of th e tri al co urt in de te rm in in g th e d efen dant 's ro le in th e o ffen se .” Id . (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d)
. Here, Mc Cal li st er fa il edto de m on strat e th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d cl ear e rro r. Altho ug h m

uc h o f he r arg um en t fo cu se s o n the lev el of i nv ol ve m en t of he r co -d efen da nt , McCa ll is te r fai ls to di m in is h h er o wn ro le in th e ad m it te d
co ns pi racy. McC al li st er re pe at ed ly des cri be s h ers el f on ly as a “ drug m ul e,” b ut th atlab el fai ls to cap tu re h er i nv ol ve m en t i n t he en te rp ris e. Sh e co m pl et edfiv e sa le s o f m etha m

ph et am in e to on e co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t i n l es s than t wo wee ks
. Mo re tha n 6 0 g ram s o f th e dru gs an d $ 4,7 00 do ll ars ch an ge d h an ds in 12 da y s. Fu rth erm or e, sh e m ad e atlea sttwo tri ps wit h h er co -d efen da ntto pu rch as e

4m etha m

ph et am in e fro m

a supp li er. McC al li st er ad m it te d, i n asi gn edst at em en t, th atth e g ov ern m en t co ul d p ro ve th atsh e co ns pi redwith o th ers to po ss es s an d di st rib ut e m or e th anfiv e-h un dr edgra m s o f m etha m ph et am in e o ve r a fi ve -m on th pe rio d. Th es e u nd is pu te d fa ct s d em on st rat e th atMcC al li st er’s ro le an d t he rel ev an t co nduc t at tri bu te d t o h er ar e th e sa m e. Ther efo re, the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d n o e rro r in de te rm in in g t ha t a r ol e reduc ti on was n otap pr op ria te . Afte r th or ou gh ly revi ewin g t he reco rd , in cl ud in g the tra ns cri ptof t he
se nt en ci ng pro ceed in gs , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt en ga ge d i n a m ean in gf ul co ns id erat io n o f McC al li st er’s req ue stfora m in im al pa rti ci pa ntor m in orpa rti ci pa ntreduc ti on an d c omm it te d n o c le ar erro r. McCa ll is te r’s actua l
ro le m at ch edth e co nduc t fo r whi ch sh e is be in g h el d a cco un tabl e. Desp it e h er rep eat edem

ph as is on th e n eedto co m pa re h er ro le wit h tha t o f he r co -d efen da nt , it is alway s “ po ss ib le th atno ne are m in oror m in im al pa rti ci pant s.” De Var on , 17 5 F.3 d a t 9 44 . This is su ch a cas e. AFFIRMED.

5