1 The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 02-2058

________________

Ramon P. Ponce,

Appellant,

v.

United States of America,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Western

District of Missouri

________________

Submitted: November 5, 2002

 Filed: November 29, 2002

________________

Before McMILLIAN and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LONGSTAFF1

, District Judge.

________________

LONGSTAFF, District Judge.
2

 Ponce’s total offense level was determined to be a level 36, and his Criminal

History Category was Category III. The resulting sentencing guideline range was

235-293 months.

2

From 1996 through the beginning of 2001, a large-scale drug organization

operating out of Amarillo, Texas, smuggled enormous amounts of cocaine,

methamphetamine and marijuana to the Kansas City area, and unknown quantities of

drugs to Arizona, California and Oklahoma. The organization was headed by

Roberto Castillo and his wife, Irma Carassco. Defendant, Ramon Ponce, was a

courier for the Castillo Organization from August of 1999 until January of 2001.

During that time, he delivered at least 27 kilograms of methamphetamine to various

locations and returned to Amarillo with the cash proceeds from the sale of those

drugs.

Ponce pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. At the

April 4, 2002 sentencing hearing, Ponce sought a “minor participant” reduction

pursuant to § 3B1.2(b) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The government

objected, arguing that the uncontested information in the presentence investigation

report (PSR) did not support Ponce’s request for the two-level reduction. The

government called Detective Jeff Seever of the Jackson County Drug Task Force to

testify regarding Ponce’s role in the conspiracy. After considering the PSR and

hearing the testimony of Detective Seever, the district court found that Ponce was not

a minor participant and sentenced him to 235 months of imprisonment.2

Several individuals, in addition to Ponce, were charged with drug crimes in

connection with the Castillo Organization. Two of the Organization’s chief

distributors were co-defendants James Fagan and Debra Haynes. Fagan received and

distributed at least 950 kilograms of cocaine; Haynes received and distributed at least
3

 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri. 

3

463 kilograms of methamphetamine and 24 kilograms of cocaine. Both pled guilty

to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and received 180-month sentences. A

related defendant, Cheryl West, helped unload 44 kilograms of methamphetamine,

at least 86 kilograms of marijuana and 4 kilograms of cocaine. West also pled guilty

to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 100 months of

imprisonment. Co-defendant Antonio Lara-Beltran pled guilty to conspiring to

distribute a mixture or substance containing cocaine, in an amount of five kilograms

or more. He was sentenced to 99 months of imprisonment. 

On appeal, Ponce contends that the district court erred in denying his request

for a minor role reduction under § 3B1.2(b) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

He argues that he is less culpable than the other criminals that participated in the

Castillo Organization; that the district court failed to assess his relative culpability

before denying his request for a minor role reduction under § 3B1.2(b); and that as

a result, his sentence is disproportionately higher than that imposed upon more

culpable participants. We review the district court’s3

 denial of the § 3B1.2(b)

reduction for clear error. United States v. Lopez-Arce, 267 F.3d 775, 784 (8th Cir.

2001). 

DISCUSSION

Section 3B1.2(b) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines authorizes a sentencing

court to decrease a defendant’s offense level by two levels if the court finds that the

defendant was a “minor participant” in the criminal activity. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b).

“Minor participant” is defined as one “who is less culpable than most other

participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” Id., Comment, Note

5. The defendant bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to a downward

departure under § 3B1.2(b). Lopez-Arce, 267 F.3d at 784. 
4

Ponce argues that he should be assigned “minor participant” status, because he

received a disproportionately higher sentence than more culpable individuals

involved in the offense. However, in discussing § 3B1.2(b) of the Federal Sentencing

Guidelines, this Court has stated: 

The mere fact that a defendant is less culpable than his co-defendants

does not entitle defendant to ‘minor participant’ status. Whether a

downward adjustment is warranted is determined not only by comparing

the acts of each participant in relation to the relevant conduct for which

the participant is held accountable, but also by measuring each

participant’s individual acts and relative culpability against the elements

of the offense. 

United States v. Snoddy, 139 F.3d 1224, 1228 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal citations

omitted). 

In the instant case, the evidence demonstrated that Ponce supplied 4.5

kilograms of methamphetamine, along with various quantities of cocaine and heroin,

on at least six separate occasions (supplying a total of 27 kilograms) to known drug

distributors in the Kansas City metropolitan area. The amount may have been greater,

as testimony from a woman within the conspiracy indicated she witnessed Ponce

transport approximately 44 kilograms of methamphetamine. The record also

established that Ponce instructed other members of the distribution scheme to accept

drugs from a particular source in Texas and return to Kansas City. Thus, Ponce

served as a conduit for the narcotics–a necessary link in the drug distribution

chain–and furthered the offense by directing others within the conspiracy. See United

States v. Wright, 873 F.2d 437, 443-44 (1st Cir. 1989) (affirming district court’s

finding that a person who transports drugs is not a minor participant since they are a

necessary link to the introduction of drugs into society). As such, Ponce’s individual

acts significantly contributed to the elements of the offense. 
5

In arguing that he is less culpable than others involved in the offense, appellant

stresses that he was a mere courier. However, even if established, Ponce’s status as

a “mere courier” does not require the district court to declare him a minor participant.

As this Court noted in United States v. Thompson, 60 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir. 1995),

if a defendant could rely on his status as a courier to achieve minor participant status,

“every participant in every drug distribution scheme would be presumably entitled to

a minor participant reduction so long as he or she were able to prove the existence of

an upstream drug supplier.” See also United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042, 1043

(8th Cir. 1996) (holding that although defendant contended he was merely a courier

who played a small role in the drug deals charged, he was not a minor participant

since his role was “significant in carrying out the drug transactions”); United States

v Currazco, 91 F.3d 65, 67 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating that a “defendant’s status as courier

does not necessarily mean he is less culpable than other participants in a drug

operation”). 

Again, assuming Ponce proved that others were relatively more culpable, the

Court notes that a “defendant who is concededly less culpable than his co-defendants

is not entitled to the minor participant reduction if that defendant was ‘deeply

involved’ in the criminal acts.” Id., 60 F.3d at 518 (quoting United States v. West,

942 F.2d 528, 531 (8th Cir. 1991)). The Thompson court, in finding the defendant

“deeply involved,” relied on evidence that the defendant was seized with $16,000

related to drug transactions, and that the defendant admitted to mailing a package

containing 476 grams of cocaine. Id. Similarly, in the instant case police seized

$62,457 in drug currency from Ponce, and he admitted he supplied at least 27

kilograms of methamphetamine to Kansas City. Thus, the district court had ample

support to conclude that Ponce was not a minor participant, but, rather, “a highly

culpable offender who was deeply involved in the drug distribution scheme.”

Thompson, 60 F.3d at 518. 
4

 After considering their substantial assistance, the district court sentenced 

Fagan and Haynes to 180 months and West to 100 months of imprisonment. 

5 Ponce also complains about the disparity between his sentence and that

received by co-defendant Lara-Beltran. Lara-Beltran’s Criminal History Category

was Category I, and he qualified for the safety valve under § 5C1.2(a) of the

guidelines, which entitled him to an additional two-level reduction. Ponce’s Criminal

History Category was Category III. Lara-Beltran’s base offense level was level 34,

while Ponce’s was level 36. The sentencing disparity between Ponce and LaraBeltran largely resulted from the difference in their criminal history and is not a basis

for a § 3B1.2(b) reduction.

6

 Finally, although not critical to the disposition of this appeal, we feel

compelled to note that there is a logical explanation for the shorter sentences imposed

upon the other criminals involved in the drug conspiracy. Fagan, West, and Haynes

originally faced sentences of 360 months to life, 262 to 327 months, and 324 to 405

months, respectively. Unlike Ponce, these defendants cooperated with the

government. As a result, the government filed downward departure motions on

behalf of these defendants, and they received lower sentences.4

 Because the

differences between Ponce’s sentence and the sentences of these defendants arose

from the plea bargaining process, they are not a proper basis for a reduction. See

United States v. Buckendahl, 251 F.3d 753, 758-59 (8th Cir. 2001).5

 

 In summary, the district court received lengthy testimony as to the involvement

of various participants in the offense and concluded that Ponce was as involved as

any of the other conspirators. As mentioned above, the evidence relied upon by the

court indicated that Ponce was a necessary component of a large-scale drug

distribution conspiracy. The district court’s denial of Ponce’s request for a §

3B1.2(b) reduction was not clearly erroneous. 

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
7

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT