T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi n g pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i n e s o f l a w o f t h e c a s e , r e s j u d i c a t a , a n d c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l . I t maybe c ite d , h o w e v e r, fo r i ts p e rs u a s iv e v a lu e c o n s i s te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Janu ary29,2007 Elisabeth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C I R C U I T UNI T E D S T A T E S OF AM E R I C A , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 05- 4318 EZEQU I EL RO BLES ES Q U I VEL, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N o . 04 - C R - 5 6 2 - TS) ( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM E N T * B efor e B R I S C O E , B A L D O C K , and HA RTZ , C i rcui tJudg es. E z e q u iel R o b les E sq u iv e l (E sq u iv e l) p led g u iltyto p o ss e ss io n w ith i nt entt o di s t r i but e 500 gr ams orm or e of met hamphet ami ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a) (1) . E squivel soug ht a tw o-l evel r edu ct i on i n o ffen se l evel pur s uantt o § 3B 1. 2 of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( G ui del i nes ) al l egi ng he w as a mi norpar t i ci panti n t he cr i m e. T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed hi s m ot i on a n d E sq u iv e l ap p e a ls fro m th a t d e n ial. W e e x e rc ise ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to-2-

2 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m . I . Factual B ackgr ound E s qui vel w as s t opped w hi l e dr i vi ng on I - 70 foran equi pm ent vi ol at i on. A s t he offi cers poke w i t h E s qui vel , he det ect ed the odorof m ar ij uana c om i ng fr om i ns i de the vehi cl e. A s ear ch of the vehi cl e r evea l ed a p p ro x im a te ly 1 .3 k ilo g ra m s o fm e th a m p h e ta m in e . D u rin g q u e stio n in g , E sq u iv e l sta ted th a t h e h a d p ick e d u p th e v e h icle ata r es tar ea i n U t ah and w as t r ans por t i ng i tt o C ol or ado. Speci fi cal l y , he s t at ed a fr i end byt he name of Efr i n as ked hi m t o t r avel t o U t ah, pi ck up a v e h i c l e , a n d d r i v e i tt o Au r o r a , Co l o r a d o i n e x c h a n g e fo r$ 2 0 0 a n d s o m e m ar ij uana. E s qui vel s t at ed thatE fr i n had dr i ven hi m t o a r es tar ea i n a r ed J eep Cher okee t o r etr i eve the ca r . A l t hough he di d notr emem bert he exa ct l ocat i on of the r es tar ea, he bel i eved i tw as aboutfor t y - fi ve mi nut es s out h of I - 70 on I - 15. E s qui vel s t at ed furt hert hathe had no know l edge thatdrugs w er e i n t he vehi cl e he r etr i eved. H e al s o s t at ed thathe had tr ans por t ed a vehi cl e i n t hi s m anneronce be for e w hen he de l i ver ed a c arfr om a C ol or ado re s id e n c e to a m e c h a n ic s h o p w h e re th e v e h ic le w a s la te r s tr ip p e d . O ffic e rs lo c a te d a c e ll p h o n e in s id e th e v e h ic le E s q u iv e l w a s d ri v in g . E s q u i v e l d e n i e d t h a th e o w n e d t h e p h o n e . P h o n e r e c o r d s c o n fi r m e d fo r t yei ghtcal l s w er e made fr om t he ce l l phone on the dayof the s t op and that thes e c all s w ere m ad e to th irteen d iffe ren t area c o d es. A s o fficers- 3-

in ter v iew e d E sq u iv e l, th e c e ll p h o n e ra n g . E sq u iv e l ag re e d to re tu rn th e c a ll i n an att empt t o m ake c ont actw i t h E fr i n. U pon pl aci ng a ca l l , he as ked for M anuel , notE fr i n. E s qui vel l at eradmi t t ed thatthe name E fr i n w as fi ct i t i ous and admi t t ed furt hert hathe w as aw ar e thatther e w er e drugs i n the vehi cl e. O ffi cer s al s o confi r m ed thatthe vehi cl e w as r egi s t er ed t o “M anuel T or r es J uar es . ” A fter e n ter in g h is g u iltyp lea , E sq u iv e l as k e d th e d istric t co u rt to r educe hi s bas e offens e l evel bytw o l evel s beca us e he w as a mi nor par t i ci panti n a l ar gerdrug di s t r i but i on s cheme. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed E sq u iv e l’s m o tio n a n d se n ten c e d h im to 1 8 8 m o n th s o fim p riso n m e n t. II. A n a ly sis E squivel con t end s that the d i stri ctcou rterr ed in den y i ng his request fo r a § 3 B 1 . 2 m ino r pa rt ici p an t r ed u cti o n . W e c o n clud e the d istri ct co u rt di d noterrbeca us e Esqui vel fai l ed t o carr yhi s bur den t o es t abl i s h t hathe w a s a m in o r p a rticip a n t. W e r evi ew forcl earerr ort he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s r efus al t o aw ar d a defe ndanta r educt i on form i norpar t i ci pants t atus under§ 3B 1. 2. U ni t ed St at es v. V i r gen- C havar i n, 350 F. 3d 1122, 1131 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) . T he

“‘ cl ear l yerr oneous ’ s t andar d r equi r es the appe l l at e courtt o uphol d any d istric t co u rt d e ter m in a tio n th a t fa lls w ith in a b ro a d ra n g e o fp e rm iss ib le co n clus ion s. ” C o o ter & G ell v . H artm arx C o rp., 4 9 6 U . S . 3 8 4 , 4 0 0 (19 9 0 );“ W e in te rp re t th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a s ifth e yw e re a s ta tu te ,” 1 U ni t ed St at es v. T agor e, 158 F. 3d 1124, 1128 (10 th C ir . 1998) , and the C om m ent aryt o t he G ui del i nes as “author i t at i ve unl es s [th ey ] vi ol at e[ ] t he C o n stitu tio n o r a fe d e ra l sta tu te, o r [ a re ] in c o n sis ten t w ith , o r a p lain ly err oneous r eadi ng of” the G ui del i nes , St i ns on v. U ni t ed St at es , 508 U . S. 36, 38 (19 9 3 ).

-4- s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. Sant i s t evan, 39 F. 3d 250, 253- 54 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) ( “W e w i l l notdi s turb a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ng of fa ctunl es s i ti s w i t hout fac tual s uppor ti n t he r ecor d, ori f aft err evi ew i ng the evi dence w e ar e l eft w i t h t he defi ni t e and fi r m convi ct i on t hata mi s t ake ha s been made. ”) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). S ec ti o n 3 B 1 . 2 o f th e G u idelines p rov ides a ra n g e o f a djustm en ts fo r a d e fe n d a n t w h o “ p lays a p a rt in c o m m itt in g th e o ffe n se th a t m a k e s h im s ubs t ant i al l yl es s cul pabl e than the ave r age pa r t i ci pant . ” U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2, cmt . n. 3( A ) . Speci fi cal l y , § 3B 1. 2( b) perm i t s a courtt o r educe a 1 defe ndant ’ s offe ns e l evel byt w o l evel s i f the defendantw as a “mi nor par t i ci panti n anycr i m i nal act i vi t y . ” I d. § 3B 1. 2( b) . A ccor di ng t o t he co m m en tarythat fo ll o w s, “[ t] h is gu ideline is n o t app li ca b le un less m o re th a n o n e p a rt ic ip a n t w a s in v o lv e d in th e o ffe n s e .” Id . § 3 B 1 .2 , c m t. n .2 .

“ P a rticip a n t,” in tu rn , is d e fin e d a s “ a p e rso n w h o is c rim in a llyre sp o n sib le fo r t h e c o m m is s io n o fth e o ffe n s e , b u t n e e d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v ic te d .” Id . § 3 B 1 .2 , cm t. n.1 . “T h e d e ter m in a tio n o fa d e fe n d a n t’s ro le in th e o ffe n se is t o be made on t he bas i s of al l conductw i t hi n t he s cope of§ 1B 1. 3 ( R el evant- 5-

C onduct ) . . . and nots ol el yon t he bas i s of el ement s and ac t s ci t ed i n the c o u n t o fc o n v ic tio n .” Id . C h . 3 , P t. B , in tr o . c m t. T h e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n o fw h e th e r to a p p lya m in o r ro le adj us t m entunder§ 3B 1. 2 “i s heavi l ydepende ntupon t he fa ct s of the par t i cul arcas e. ” I d. § 3B 1. 2, cmt . n. 3( C ) . Si gni fi cant l y , “[a ] s w i t h any otherfactual i ssue, t he co urt , i n w ei gh i ng the tot al i t yof the ci rcum st ances, i s notr equi r ed t o fi nd, bas ed s ol el yon t he defendant ’ s bar e as s er t i on, that su ch a ro le adjustm en t i s w arran ted.” Id . ; see a lso U n it ed S tat es v . S alaz arSam ani ega, 361 F. 3d 1271, 1278 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . W e have hel d thatthe m i norpar t i ci panti nqui r ym us t“foc us upon t he defendant ’ s know l edge or l ack ther eof c oncerni ng t he s cope a nd s t ructur e of the ent erpr i s e and ofthe act i vi t i es of other s i nvol ved i n the offens e. ” Sal aza r - Sam ani ega, 361 F. 3d a t 1 2 7 7 (q u o tin g U n ited S tate s v . C a ld e ro n -P o rra s, 9 1 1 F .2 d 4 2 1 , 4 2 3 (1 0 th C i r . 1990) ) . A defe ndantbear s the bur den of pr ovi ng, bya pr eponder ance of t he evi dence , t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o a r educt i on under§ 3B 1. 2. V i r genC h a v a ri n , 3 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 1 . E sq u iv e l as se rts th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d b e c a u se it fa iled to compar e hi s cr i m i nal i nvol vementt o thatof other s . E s qui vel cont ends that he w as a s m al l cog i n a l ar ge drug cons pi r acyand he r el i es heavi l yupon uns uppor t ed as s er t i ons , bot h hi s ow n and thos e w hi ch defens e couns el pr offe r ed on hi s behal f ats ent enci ng. B eca us e s uch s el f- s ervi ng t es t i m ony- 6-

i s cl ear l yi ns uffi ci entt o m eett he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng ent i t l ementt o a m i norr ol e r educt i on, t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d noterr . See Sal aza r - Sam ani ega, 3 6 1 F . 3 d at 12 7 8 (“A d efen d an t’ s o w n test im o n ythat o thers w ere m o re heavi l yi nvol ved i n a cr i m i nal s cheme m aynots uffi ce t o pr ove hi s m i noror m i ni m al par t i ci pat i on, even i f uncontr adi ct ed byotherevi dence . ”) M o re o v e r, E s q u iv e l’ s a s s e rt io n s la c k c re d ib ility fo r o th e r r e a s o n s . F or exam ple, E squivel st at ed thathe w as unaw are he w as transport i ng drugs, butl at erconfe s s ed he w as aw ar e of hi s car go. A l s o, E s qui vel s t at ed thathe w as t r ans por t i ng t he vehi cl e fora fr i end named E fr i n, butl at erconce ded t hatE fr i n w as fi ct i t i ous . C l ear l y , the di s t r i ctcour tdi d noterri n fi ndi ng E s q u i v e l ’ s s t a t e m e n t s l a c k e d c r e d i b i l i t y a n d w e r e i n s u ffi c i e n tt o j u s t i fy a ro le re d u c tio n . E s qui vel ’ s r emai ni ng evi dence i n s uppor tof hi s m i norr ol e ar gum ent i s w eak. E s qui vel as s er t s t hatt he r ed J eep Cher okee w hi ch w as r epor t ed as foll ow i ng him show s hi s l i m i t ed involvem ent i n the cr i m e. E squivel al so a ss e rts th a t sin c e h e o w n e d n e ith e r th e v e h icle h e w a s d riv in g , n o r th e c e ll phone found i n t he vehi cl e, he w as m er el ya mi norpar t i ci pant . L i kew i s e, he as s er t s t hatt he fa ctt hathe onl yhad $12 i n hi s pos s es s i on w hen he w as a rre ste d (m o n e ya lleg e d lyp ro v id e d b yM a n u e l fo r g a so lin e ) su p p o rts h is c laim th a t h e w a s a m in o r p layer. N o n e th e les s, th e im p o rt o fth e se fa c ts is a m b ig u o u s a t b e st a n d w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in-7-

fin d in g th e m in s u ffic ie n t to e s ta b lis h th a t E s q u iv e l w a s a m in o r p a rt ic ip a n t. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . H ec k ard , 2 3 8 F . 3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 3 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (“W h ere t her e ar e tw o perm i s s i bl e vi ew s of the evi dence , the fa ct fi nder ’ s choi ce betw een them cannotbe cl ear l yerr oneous . ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . Fur t her , as r egar ds t he ce l l phone, E s qui vel ’ s ow ner s hi p of the phone appe ar s l es s s i gni fi cant , w hen det erm i ni ng hi s r ol e i n the cr i m e, than h is e x ten siv e u se o fth e p h o n e to m a k e n u m e ro u s c a lls, inc lu d in g c a lls to t hirt een d i fferentarea codes. E s qui vel al s o ar gues t hatthe di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n concl udi ng thatthe quant i t yof drugs found i n t he vehi cl e pr ecl uded hi m fr om r ece i vi ng a mi nor r ol e adj us t m ent . W e di s agr ee. T he C om m ent aryt o § 3B 1. 2 es t abl i s hes that

“ a d e fe n d a n t w h o is c o n v icte d o fa d ru g tra ffick in g o ffe n se , w h o se ro le in th a t o ffe n se w a s lim ited to tra n sp o rtin g o r sto rin g d ru g s a n d w h o is acc ount abl e under§ 1B 1. 3 onl yforthe quant i t yof drugs the defendant per s onal l yt r ans por t ed . . . i s notpr ecl uded fr om cons i der at i on for ” a mi nor par t i ci pantr educt i on. U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2, cmt . n. 3( A ) . A ts ent enci ng, d e fe n se c o u n se l ar g u e d “ w h e th e r it w a s a lar g e q u a n tityo r a sm a ll q u a n tity [of drugs t r ans por t ed] i s no l ongert aken i nt o acc ount ” w hen conduc t i ng a m ino r pa rt ici p an t i n q u iry . A p p x . , V o l. IV , p . 1 0 . T h e d istri ct co u rt d i s a g r e e d w i t h c o u n s e l ’ s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , s t a t i n g , “ W h a t[ t h e C o m m e n t a r y] s ay s i s he’ s notpr ecl uded, but. . . the C our tcan c er t ai nl yt ake [ drug- 8-

quant i t y ] i nt o cons i der at i on. ” I d. D efe ns e couns el agr eed. B eca us e the di s t r i ctcour tdi d nothol d t hatt he G ui del i nes pr ecl uded Esqui vel fr om bei ng c o n s id e re d fo r a m in o r p a rt ic ip a n t r e d u c tio n , it d id n o t e rr in th is re g a rd . E s qui vel ar gues fur t hert hatthe di s t r i ctcour tover emphasi zed the s i gni fi canc e of the quant i t yof drugs found i n the vehi cl e, beca us e drug q u a n tityis re lev a n t to th e ro le r e d u c tio n in q u iryo n lyin so fa r a s it re flec ts k n o w l e d g e a n d d e g r e e o fc u l p a b i l i t y . I ti s tru e we h a v e e x p r e s s e d s o m e conce r n r egar di ng a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s heavyr el i ance upon drug quant i t yw hen addr es s i ng a r eques tfora mi norr ol e r educt i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. C arut h, 930 F. 2d 811, 816 ( 10t h C i r . 1991) ( “W e ar e conc erned bythe cour t ’ s r efe r ence t o t he quant i t yof drugs . . . . T he quant i t yof drugs has al r eadybeen t aken i nt o acc ounti n es t abl i s hi ng the offens e l evel and t aki ng t he quant i t yi nt o acc ountonce a gai n i n deci di ng upon t he appl i cabi l i t yof a dju stm e n ts fo r m in im a l o r m in o r p a rticip a tio n risk s im p o sin g d o u b le puni s hm ent . ”) . N onethel es s , abs entevi dence thatthe di s t r i ctcour tappl i ed a n e rro n e o u s le g a l in terp re tatio n o fth e G u id e lin e s, w e h a v e d e c lin e d to r emand forr es ent enci ng. See i d. ( “H ow ever , w e ar e notper s uaded thatthe di s t r i ctcour tw as pr ocee di ng underan err oneous l egal i nt erpr et at i on of the G u idelines w h en itrefu sed to m ak e a fu rth er tw o -po int do w n w ard adjustm en t i n [d efen d an t’ s] fa v o r. ”). H er e, t he di s t r i ctcour ts t at ed thatE s qui vel ’ s r ol e w as “vi abl e and- 9-

i m po rt ant” and thathe “en gag ed in si m i l ar behav i or or cond uct on atl east one otherocca s i on. ” A ppx. , V ol . I V , p. 11. T he di s t r i ctcour tadded that th e s e fa c to rs , “ c o m b in e d w ith th e s ig n ific a n t a m o u n t o fd ru g s in v o lv e d ,” es t abl i s hed Esqui vel ’ s r ol e w as notm i nor . I d. W e conc l ude the di s t r i ct cour tnot ed the amountof drugs s ei zed fr om the vehi cl e as an i ndi cat orof E s q u i v e l ’ s k n o w l e d g e a n d d e g r e e o fc u l p a b i l i t y. Fi nal l y , E s qui vel cl ai m s thatthe di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n fi ndi ng t hathe h ad en g ag ed in at least on e o ther p ri o r releva n t dru g tr an sac ti o n . H o w ev er, even a s s um i ng t hi s w er e true, t he r es ul t i ng err orw oul d be harm l es s i n l i ght o fE s q u i v e l ’ s t o t a l fa i l u r e t o c a r r y h i s b u r d e n t o e s t a b l i s h b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o ft h e e v i d e n c e t h a th e wa s a mi n o rp a r t i c i p a n ti n th e c r i m e i n ques t i on. A c c o rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o fth e d istric t co u rt. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge