FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 17, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11851 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 8 2 4 - CR - J EM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M A T I L D E E L E N A R U A B L A N D O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m be r17, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntM a t i l de E l e ne R ua B l a ndon appe a l s he r70- m onth s e nt e nc e f or i m por t a t i on of

he r oi n a nd pos s e s s i on of he r oi n w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e , i n vi ol a t i on2

of 21 U . S . C . §§ 95 2(a) and 8 41 (a )( 1). O n app ea l , B l ando n argues thatthe di stri ct c o u r t e rr e d in n o t g r a n tin g h e ra m in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n b e c a u s e it f a ile d p r o p e r ly to ap p l y th e t e s tf

r o m U ni te d State s v . D e V

ar on , 17 5 F . 3d 93 0 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( en banc). S he ar gu es that , un der D e V ar on , the di stri ctcourtw as re qu i re d t o m ea sure he rc onduc ta ga i ns tthe othe rpa r t i c pa nt s ’ c onduc t . S he a r gue s tha tbe c a us e the di stri ctcourtca t egori ca l l y deni ed her r equestfor am i no r- rol e r educt i on base d up on her bei ng a drug cou ri er , and as s uch, appl i ed a per se pr e c l us i ve rul e , the st andard of revi ew i n thi s c as e s ho ul d b e de no vo , no tcl ea r e rr or. T he st andard of revi ew for adi stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of w hether a d e f e n d a n t q u a lif

ie s f o ra m in o r - r o le r e d u c tio n is c le a re rr o r . U ni ted Stat es v. B oyd , 291 F . 3d 1274, 1277 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( c i t i ng D e V ar on , 175 F . 3d a t937- 38) . T he p r o p o n e n t o f

th e r e d u c tio n a lw a y s b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g th e e n title m e n t to th e r e d u c tio n b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . D e V

ar on , 175 F . 3d a t939. T he S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s pe r m i ta c our tt o de c r e a s e a de f e nda nt ’ s of

f e ns e l e ve l by tw o p oi nt s i f i tfi nd s thatthe defendantw as a “ m i no r part i ci pant ” i n the cr i m i nal act i v i ty. U . S . S . G § 3 B 1 . 2 (b ). A d efen d an ti s a m i n o r p art i ci p an ti f sh e i s “ l ess cul pabl e than m ostother part i ci pant s, bu t[her ] rol e c ou l d n otbe desc ri bed as m in im a l.” U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 , c m t. n .5 . I n d e te rm in in g w h e th e ra m itig a tin g - r o le r e d u c t i o n i s wa rr a n t e d , a d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n “ s h o u l d b e i n f o rm e d b y two3

pr i nc i pl e s di s c e rne d f

r om the G ui de l i ne s : f

i r s t , the de f

e nda nt ’ s r ol e i n the r e l e va nt cond uctfor w hi ch she has been hel d acc ou nt abl e a tse nt enci ng , and, se cond , her rol e a s c om pare d t o thatof other part i ci pant s i n h erre l evantcond uct . ” D e V ar on , 1 7 5 F . 3 d at9 4 0 . In l o o k i n g t o rel ev an tco n d u ct , “ th e d i stri ctco u rtm u stassess w he the rthe de f

e nda nti s a m i nororm i ni m a l pa r t i c i pa nti n r e l a t i on t o the r e l e va nt cond uctattri bu t ed t o the defendanti n cal cul at i ng her bas e off ense l evel . ” I

d. at 941. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e te r m in e d th a t b e c a u s e B la n d o n w a s h e ld a c c o u n tab le on l y f or the am ou ntof drug s s he i m po rt ed i nt o the U ni t ed S t at es , her a ctual c o n d u c t a n d h e rr e le v a n t c o n d u c t w e r e id e n tic a l. Se e D e V ar on , 175 F . 3d a t942- 43 . (“ [A ] di stri ctcourtm ayl egi t i m at el y c on cl ud e thatthe couri erpl ay ed an i m por t a ntore s s e nt i a l r ol e i n the i m por t a t i on of the s e drugs . ” ) T hus , c onc l udi ng B l a ndon di d notpl a y a m i norr ol e i n the r e l e va ntc onduc t , the di s tr i c tc our tw a s not re qu i re d t o anal yz e the D e V ar on s e c ond pr ong. B e c a u s e th e r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c a te g o r ic a lly excl ud e B l ando n from a m i no r- rol e r educt i on and i tprop er l y app l i ed the D e V ar on an alys is, w e c o n clu d e th er e w as n o clea r e rr o r. A cc o rd in g ly, w e a ff irm B lan d o n ’s se nt ence . AF F I RME D.