## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 22

- 3493

___________________________
United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Luis Alberto Castro

- Santos

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________
Submitted: September 18, 2023 Filed: November 17, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Luis Alberto Castro

- Santos pleaded guilty to conspiracy to unlawfully produce, transfer, and possess with intent to use or transfer 5 or more documents or
authentication features

, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(1)

– (3) and 1028(f) . T he-2- district court 1 sentenced him to a 24

- month term of imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. Castro- Santos appeals the denial of a downward adjustment pursuant to § 3B1.2(b) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) based on his minor role in the conspiracy.

I.

Between Spring 2020 and April 2021, Castro

- Santos mailed fraudulent
documents from a post office in California to addresses in Fremont and Wakefield,
Nebraska

. He mailed dozens of packages that contained s ocial s ecurity cards, state and foreign identification cards, and permanent resident cards on a weekly basis

. Castro- Santos’s role in the conspiracy was limited to mailing packages, which he knew contained fraudulent documents. In exchange, he was paid $50 for each mailing. T hree Nebraska

- based co

- defendan ts then sold the documents they obtained
from Castro

- Santos

.

Castro- Santos argued that a minor

- role reduction was appropriate because his
role in the conspiracy was limited to mail ing packages of documents

. He maintained
that he was not involved in creating the fraudulent documents, arrang ing the ir sale

, negotiating their price, or communicating with co

- defendants . Moreover, he did not

even know how many documents were in each package . F ollowing review of the parties’ briefing and oral arguments, the district court determined that Castro- Santos had not proven a mitigating role and denied his request for a downward adjustment

.

II.

Section 3B1.2 a llow s for a 2- level reduction in a defendant’s base offense
level if they were “ a minor participant” and “ less culpable than most other participants in the criminal activity.” USSG § 3B1.2 (b) (2021); id. comment. (n.5).

1 The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.-3- When considering whether a minor

- r ole reduction is appropriate, “the district court
should consider the defendant ’ s knowledge, planning, authority, responsibility, and benefit from the illegal scheme.” United States v. Jones , 25 F.4th 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 2022) ( quoting United States v. Kearby , 943 F.3d 969, 977

– 78 (5th Cir. 2019) ; citing USSG § 3B1.2 comment. (n.3(C)); United States v. Waddell , 831 F.3d 958, 960 (8th Cir. 2016) ) (cleaned up). “[O]ur cases make it clear that merely showing the defendant was less culpable than other participants is not enough to entitle the defendant to the adjustment if the defendant was ‘ deeply involved ’ in the offense .”
United States v. Bush , 352 F.3d 1177, 1182 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v.
West , 942 F.2d 528, 531 (8th Cir. 1991) ; United States v. Thompson , 60 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir. 1995)).

I t is the defendant’s burden to prove he ha d a mitigating role in the offense

. United States v. Young, 689 F.3d 941, 946 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v.
Mitchell , 613 F.3d 862, 870 (8th Cir. 2010))

. “We review the district court’s refusal to grant a minor role adjustment for clear error. ” United States v. Garcia , 946 F.3d 413, 418 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Price

, 542 F.3d 617, 622 (8th Cir. 2008)).

Cas tro- Santos argues that he was entitled to a reduction under USSG § 3B1.2 (b) because he played only a minor role

, as an “ unwitting courier ,” in the conspiracy. He maintains that he had no proprietary interest in the conspiracy and that he was “less culpable than the average co

- conspirator,” as shown by the government’s lack of evidence that he was involved beyond the mailing of packages

.

T he district court’s decision to deny a minor

- role reduction was not clearly

erroneous

. T he record reflects that for approximately one year, Castro

- Santos knowingly mailed dozens of packages of fraudulent document s to Nebraska, where

co

- defendants then sold them

. Even if he had less authority or responsibility over the conspiracy than his co

- defendants

, he benefited throughout, receiving $50 for each trip to the post office. Moreover, all fraudulent documents involved in the conspiracy
had to be mailed by him before they could be sold

. Castro

- San tos’s role may have-4- been limited to that of a type of courier

. B ut mailing the contraband served an important function in the conspiracy, and Castro- Santos was a steady participant
from the start of th at conspiracy to its end

. See United States v. Pruneda , 518 F.3d 597, 606 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that when transportation of contraband is a key component of a conspiracy, a defendant’s “self

- acknowledged role as a

. . . courier

. . . does not entitle [them] to a minor participant role reduction” (citing United States v. Martinez, 168 F.3d 1043, 1048 (8 th Cir. 1999)) ).

W e affirm.

______________________________