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[Unpublished]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). The 
-2- 

district court1 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 social security 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. Three Nebraska-based co-defendants 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 mailing packages of documents. He maintained 

that he was not involved in creating the fraudulent documents, arranging their sale, 

negotiating their price, or communicating with co-defendants. Moreover, he did not

even know how many documents were in each package. Following 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 allows 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-role 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)). 

It is the defendant’s burden to prove he had 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)). 

Castro-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’slack of evidence that he was involved beyond the mailing of packages. 

The district court’s decision to deny a minor-role reduction was not clearly 

erroneous. The record reflects that for approximately one year, Castro-Santos 

knowingly mailed dozens of packages of fraudulent documents 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-Santos’s role may have 
-4- 

been limited to that of a type of courier. But mailing the contraband served an 

important function in the conspiracy, and Castro-Santos was a steady participant 

from the start of that 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 (8th Cir. 1999))). 

We affirm.

______________________________