# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 23 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Eli o C ru z Ro dr ig ue z

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 25 , 20 18 Fi le d: Decem

be r 11 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re LOKEN, BENTO N, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Eli o Ro dr ig ue z pl ed gu il ty to ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th e po ss es si on of m or e th an 50 0 gr am s of met h a mph et am in e wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 ) ( A ) ( v ii i), an d 18 U.S.C. § 2. Ro dr ig ue z ob jecte d to th e pr ese nt en ce in ve st ig at io n rep or t, se ek in g a th ree- le ve l red uc ti on in hi s ba se of fen se le ve l
fo r a m it ig at in g ro le

. See Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on , Gui de li ne s Man ua l,§ 3B 1.2 . Th e d is tri ct co ur t ov erru le d h is ob jecti on an d im

po se d a se nt en ce of 16 8 1

m on th s im

pr is on m en t fo ll owe d by fiv e y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Ro dr ig ue z arg ue s th e di st ric t c o u r t c o m

m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r in de nyin g hi m a m it ig at in g- ro le
red uc ti on ; fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n why it de ni ed hi s req ue st fo r a m it ig at in g- ro le
red uc ti on ; an d fai li ng to ev al ua te al l of th e fact or s ou tl in ed in § 3B 1.2 o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . W e aff irm.

I.

“In rev ie win g th e di st ric t co ur t’s se nt en ce, ‘[w] e m us t fir st en su re th at th e di st ric t co ur t co mm i t t ed no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r.’” Uni te d St at es v. Sal azar -Ale m an , 7 41 F.3d 87 8, 8 80 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (q uo ti ng Un i t e d S t at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). “ A di st ric t co ur t m us t ‘adeq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en 2

se nt en ce to all ow for m ean in gf ul ap pe ll at e rev ie w an d to pr om ot e th e pe rcep ti on of
fai r se nt en ci ng .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Dur ha m , 83 6 F.3 d 90 3, 91 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d at 46 1)

. “ The di st ric t co ur t’s

. . . de ni al of a m it ig at in g

ro le red uc ti on is a fact ua l fin di ng rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r.” Sal a z a r

- A l e m an , 74 1
F.3 d at 88 0 (ci ti ng U n i t e d S t a te s v. Ell is , 8 90 F.2 d 10 40 , 1 04 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ) (p er

cu ria m )). Alt ho ug h we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r, we

rev ie w “ it s ap pl ic at io n of t h e g u i d e l in es to th os e fact s de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Cas ti ll o, 71 3 F.3 d 40 7, 41 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Alem an , 54 8 F.3 d
11 58 , 11 63 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) ).

A red uc ti on un de r § 3B 1.2 is av ai la bl e “ whe re th e de fen da nt ’s ro le ‘m ak es hi m

su bs ta nt ia ll y le ss cu lp ab le th an th e av er a g e p art ic ip an t in th e cri m in al act iv it y .’ ”

The Hon or ab le D.P. Mar sh al l Jr
., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

Ro dr ig ue z d oe s n ot arg ue hi s s en te nc e is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. 2

-2

-Uni te d St at es v. Sh ark ey , 89 5 F.3 d 10 77
, 10 81 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (p er cu ria m ) (q uo ti ng

USSG § 3B 1.2
, co m

m en t. (n .3(A) )). The red uc ti on “ is in te nd ed to co ve r de fen da nt s who are pl ai nl y am on g th e le as t cu lp ab le of th os e in vo lv ed in th e co nd uc t of a
gr ou p.” Uni te d St at es v. Cart ag en a, 85 6 F.3 d 11 93
, 11 96 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (q uo ti ng USSG § 3B 1.2
, co m

m en t. (n.4 )). In de te rm in in g whet he r to gra nt a m it ig at in g- ro le
red uc ti on , a di st ric t co ur t s ho ul d c on si de r:

(i) th e de gr ee to whi ch th e de fen da nt un de rs to od th e sc op e an d st ru ct ur e of th e cri m in al act iv it y ; (ii ) th e d e g ree to whi ch th e de fen da nt

pa rti ci pa te d in pl an ni ng or or ga ni zi ng th e cri m in al act iv it y ; (ii i) th e de gr ee to whi ch th e de fen da nt ex erci se d de ci si on -m ak in g a u th or it y or in flu en ced th e ex erci se of de ci si on -m ak in g au th or it y ; (iv ) th e na tu re an d

ex te nt of th e de fen da nt ’s pa rti ci pa ti on in th e co m m is si on of th e cri m in al

act iv it y , in cl ud in g th e act s th e de fen da nt pe rfo rm ed an d th e

res po ns ib il it y an d di sc ret io n th e de fen da nt ha d in p erfo rm in g th os e
act s; an d (v ) th e de gr ee to whi ch th e de fen da nt st oo d to be ne fit fro m th e cri m in al act iv it y

.

USSG § 3B 1.2
, co m

m en t. (n .3(C )). Thi s in qu iry is “ he av il y de pe nd en t up on th e fact s of th e pa rti cu la r cas e.” Id

. To be su re, “ [a] de fen da nt who is co nc ed ed ly le ss cu lp ab le
th an hi s c o d e f

en da nt s is no t en ti tl ed to th e m in or pa rti ci pa nt red uc ti on if th at
de fen da nt was ‘dee pl y

in vo lv ed ’ in th e cri m in al act s.” Unit ed Sta te s v . Tho m ps on , 60 F.3 d 51 4, 51 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d Stat es v. W es t, 94 2 F.2d 52 8, 53 1 (8 th Cir . 19 91 )); see als o C art ag en a, 85 6 F .3d at 1 19 7.

II.

Ro dr ig ue z “ be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g th at he is en ti tl ed to th [e] red uc ti on .”
Sal azar -Ale m an , 7 4 1 F

. 3d at 88 0 (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ch at m an , 1 19 F.3 d 13 35
, 13 41 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )). Ro dr i g u e z arg ue s he sh ou ld ha ve be en gi ve n th e red uc ti on

-3

-be cau se he was on ly in vo lv ed in th e of fen se to sa ti sf

y a dr ug de bt

, he was act in g on be ha lf of ot he rs , he ha d no de ci si on -m ak in g au th or it y , an d he was no t pa id to co m m it
th e o ffen se

.

In res po ns e to Ro dr ig ue z’s in it ia l req ue st fo r a th ree- le ve l red uc ti on to th e ba se of fen se le ve l, th e pr ob at io n of fic er ex pl ai ne d th at a red uc ti on wou ld be in ap pr op ria te gi ve n th at Ro dr ig ue z “ was th e pr im ary act or i n a r r a n gi ng th e sa le

, m ai li ng , an d

tra ns po rt[ at io n] of [th e] m et ha m ph et am in e

. . . .” Add

. to Pre- Sen t. In ve st ig

. Rep or t.
At se nt en ci ng , Ro dr ig ue z’s co un se l arg ue d th at Ro dr ig ue z sh ou ld rece iv e a ro le
red uc ti on be cau se he di d no t “ ex erci se an y de ci si o n

- maki ng au th or it y , no r di d he
f i n a n c i al ly pr of

it fro m th e cri m e it se lf.” Sen t. Tr. 7, ECF No. 51

. Ro dr ig ue z a l s o
te st ifi ed

. The di st ric t cou rt den ie d Rod rig ue z’s req ue st fo r a red uc ti on an d ad op te d
th e pr ob at io n of

fic er’s reas on in g. The di st ric t c o ur t st at ed it wou ld “ ta ke th e ro le
is su e in to acco un t as m it ig at io n [to ward s th e se n t en ce].” Sen t. Tr. 6. The di st ric t

co ur t un de rs to od Ro dr ig ue z ha d be en act in g at th e di rect io n of ot he rs bu t co nc lu de d
th at th is f a c t w a s “p r o pe rly an d be tt er ta ke n in to acco un t as a m at te r of m it ig at io n gi ve n th at [h e] was no t jus t a co ur ie r

. . . .” Sen t. Tr. 10

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d
th at Ro dr ig ue z was “

jus t do in g to o m

uc h un de r th e fact or s th at [it was ] su pp os ed to

co ns id er i n 3 B1 .[2].” Sen t. Tr. 1 0- 11

.

Bas ed o n th e reco rd be fo re us , Ro dr ig ue z fai le d to m eet hi s bu rd en , an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a m it ig at in g- ro le red uc ti on was no t cl ear erro r. See Dur ha m , 83 6 F.3 d at 91 0 (aff

irming th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a mi t i g a ti ng -ro le red uc ti on be cau se “ [t]he co ur t’s ad op ti on of an d cl ear refe ren ces to th e Pro ba ti on Offi ce’s

reas on in g in th e PSI Add en du m pr ov id ed ad eq ua te ex pl an at io n fo r it s de ni al of [th e de fen da nt ]’ s ob

je ct io n” ). It is cl ear fro m th e se nt en ci ng tra ns cri pt th at th e di st ric t

co ur t co ns id ered th e § 3B 1.2 fact or s, ev en if it di d no t ex pr es sl y ad dr es s each on e on th e reco rd

. See Uni te d St at es v. Torr es -Hern an de z, 84 3 F.3 d 20 3, 20 9 (5 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (n ot in g th at a di st ric t co ur t is “ no t req ui red to ex pr es sl y weig h each fact or in § 3B 1.2

on th e rec or d” ).

-4

-Fu rth er, an ap pl ic a t i on of th e fact or s weig hs ag ai ns t gr an ti ng Ro dr ig ue z th e

red uc ti on

. Fi rs t, a co nf

id en ti al so ur ce rep or te d kn owi ng Ro dr ig ue z fo r se ve ral y ears

an d th at Ro dr ig ue z ha d be en in vo lv ed in dr ug tra ffi ck in g fo r th e du rat io n of th at ti m e. Pre- Sen t. In ve st ig

. Rep or t 3. In de ed

, Ro d r i g ue z ad m it te d th at on on e oc cas io n he
de al t 10 0 po un ds of m ari juan a. Pre- Sen t. In ve st ig

. Rep or t 4. Seco nd

, du rin g

reco r d e d ph on e co nv ers at io ns whe re he or ga ni zed th e tra ns act io ns , Ro dr ig ue z to ld
th e co nf id en ti al so ur ce t ha t h e co ul d g et a ki lo gr am of m et ha m ph et am in e fro m two
lo cat io ns in Tex as

. Pre- Sen t. In ve st ig

. Rep or t 3. The co nf id en ti al so u r c e r ep or te d
th at Ro dr ig ue z was co nn ect e d to m ajor su pp li ers of m et ha m ph et am in e. Pre- Sen t.
In ve st ig

. Rep o r t 3

. Th ird

, Ro dr ig ue z br ok ered th e tra ns act io ns , m ai le d a pa ck ag e

co nt ai ni ng m et ha m

p h e t a mi n e , an d tra ns po rte d th e dr ug s by bu s to Ark an sa s. PreSen t. In ve st ig

. Rep or t 3- 4. Fi na ll y , al th ou gh he was no t pa id to co m m it th e of fen se ,

su cces sf ul de li ve ry of th e dr ug s wou ld ha ve sa ti sf ie d a dr ug de bt

. Pre- Sen t. In ve st ig

. Rep or t 4 . Rod rig ue z d id no t o bjec t t o a ny of th es e fac ts . Sen t. Tr. 7

.

Ro dr ig ue z fu rth er arg ue s th at it is un cl ear whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t co m pa red
hi s ro le in th e of

fen se to th at of ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s, whi ch warra nt s rem an d. He ci te s Uni te d S ta te s v

. Diaz -Ri os , 70 6 F.3d 79 5 (7t h Cir. 20 13 ), in su pp or t t he reo f. Diaz

Ri os is read il y di st in gu is ha bl e fo r at le as t th ree reas on s. Fi rs t, th ere th e go ve rn m en t

co nc ed ed th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n it s ru li ng , an d th e co ur t’s
in de pe nd en t rev ie w co nf irmed as mu c h. Id

. at 79 5. Seco nd

, th ere it was “ un cl ear fro m th e reco rd whe th er th e pr ob at io n of fic er ad dr es se d [th e de fen da nt ’s ob jecti on
to th e ab se nc e of a red uc ti on ] be fo re se nt en ci ng .” Id

. at 79 7. Fi na ll y , th ere, pu rs ua nt

to ci rcu it -s pe ci fic cas e la w, th e co ur t reco gn iz ed th at “ [w]here th e reas on s fo r a ru li ng

un de r § 3B1 .2 are am

bi gu ou s, [it ha s] no ch oi ce b ut to rem an d fo r a m or e co m pl et e

ex pl an at io n.” Id

. at 79 9. Non e of th es e ch arac te ris ti cs in Diaz -Ri os are pr es en t he re.

Ro dr ig ue z al so arg ue s th at , to th e ex te nt th e d is tri ct co ur t co m pa red hi s lev el
of cu lp ab il it y t o th at of hi s co -d efen da nt , it di d so erro ne ou sl y be cau se th e
go ve rn m en t di sm is se d hi s co -d efen da nt fro m th e cas e aft er se nt en ci ng an d, th eref or e,

-5

-th e co -d efen da nt was no t a “ pa rti ci pa nt ” as de fin ed in th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. See

USSG § 3B 1.2
, co m

m en t. (n .1). Bu t a pa rti ci pa nt “ is a pe rs on who is cri m in al ly

res po ns ib le fo r th e co m

m is si on of th e of

fen se , [an d] ne ed no t ha ve be en co nv ic te d.”
Id

. § 3B 1.1
, co m

m en t. (n .1). The go ve rn m en t as se rts th at Ro dr i g u ez’s fo rm er co

de fen da nt was pres en t duri ng th e tra ns po rta ti on of dr ug s fro m on e lo cat io n to an ot he r,

an d a co ol er co nt ai ni ng th e m et ha m ph et am in e was ta gg ed in hi s na m e; th us , th e m ere fact th at th e g ov ern m en t d is m is se d t he in di ct m en t ag ai ns t th e co -d efen da nt is of n o

co ns eq ue nc e.

III.

W e fin d no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s a p p l i c a t io n of th e Sen te nc in g Gu i d e l in es , an d we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in de nyin g a

m it ig at in g- ro le red uc ti on in th is cas e. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-