2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-26-2006 

# U SA v . Gon z ale z P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3369

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Gonzalez " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1212. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1212T he H onor abl e H ar ol d A . A ckerm an, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge forthe D i s t r i ctof N ew 1 J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 05- 3369 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. FAU STI NO GO NZA LEZ, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll D i s t r i ctC our tN o. : 02- cr - 00261- 07 A r gued M ar ch 31, 2006 B e f o re : S M IT H a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges , and A C K E R M A N , D i s t r i ctJ udge 1 ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 26, 2006) DE NNI S E . BO YL E ( AR GUE D) 1525 C edarC l i ff D r i ve C amp H i l l , PA 17011 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant WI L L I AM A. BE HE ( AR GUE D) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 228 W al nutSt r eet , P. O . B ox 11754 22 0 F ederal B uil ding and C ou rtho use H arr i s bur g, Penns y l vani a 17108 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ee2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT A C K E R M A N , Seni orD is tr i ct Judge . A ppel l antFaus t i no G onzal ez c hal l enges the s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i s t r i ct C our taft erG onzal ez pl eade d gui l t yt o t w o count s of i nt er s t at e tr avel i n ai d of ra c k e te e ri n g (s p e c if

ic a lly, d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g ), i n v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 2 (a )( 3 ). G onzal ez a r gues t hat : 1) t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s cal cul at i on of the amountof her oi n i nvol ved ( w hi ch ca l cul at i on w as cont ai ned i n t he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor t( “PSR ”) pr epar ed byt he Pr obat i on D epart m ent ) w as i ncorr ectand over s t at ed, i nas m uch as i tm ade G onzal ez r es pons i bl e notonl yfort he amount s of her oi n t hatG onzal ez hi m s el f tr avel ed in ter sta te to a c q u ire , b u t als o in c lu d e d sig n if ica n t am o u n ts p u rc h a se d , d istrib u ted o r so ld byot herm ember s of the drug- t r aff i cki ng ent erpr i s e; 2) G onzal ez w as i ncar cer at ed for m uch of the t i m e per i od i n w hi ch the PSR al l eged he had bee n pur chas i ng, di s t r i but i ng or s el l i ng drugs , and thus coul d nothave pa r t i ci pat ed i n t he tr ans act i ons as cr i bed t o hi m by t he PSR fort hos e t i m e per i ods w hen he w as i ncar cer at ed; and 3) i nas m uch as the D i s tr i ct C o u rtac ce p ted th e P S R ’s ca lculati o n o f th e q u an ti ti es o f h ero in im p li ca ted b yG o n za lez’s a c tio n s in f

u rth e ra n c e o f

th e ra c k e tee rin g e n terp rise , inc lu d in g q u a n tit ies a ttribu tab le to t he ac t i ons of otherm ember s of the drug tr aff i cki ng ent erpr i s e, G onzal ez i s ent i t l ed t o a r educt i on i n s ent ence beca us e he w as a “mi ni m al part i ci pant ” i n t he drug- t r aff i cki ng act i vi t i es al l eged. IL ui s R i ver a w as char ged and pr os ecut ed i n s epar at e pr ocee di ngs . I n N ovember 2 2 0 0 3 , R iv e ra w a s s e n te n c e d to 1 3 7 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t f o r d is tr ib u tio n o f

h e ro in . 3 G o n z a lez w a s in iti a llyc h a rg e d w ith d istrib u tio n a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith th e in ten t to d istrib u te o n e k ilo g ra m o r m o re o f h e ro in , an d c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss w ith th e in ten t to d istrib u te o n e k ilo g ra m o r m o re o f h e ro in , p u rsu a n t to a m u lti -c o u n t, m u lti defe ndantI ndi ctm entfi l ed aga i ns tG onzal ez a nd s ever al ot herdefe ndant s . G onzal ez pl ed g u iltyto a tw o -c o u n t S u p e rse d in g In f o rm a tio n , an d a d m itt e d to m a k in g tw o trip s f ro m h is hom e i n Y or k, Penns y l vani a t o N ew Y or k C i t yt o fac i l i t at e the drug tr aff i cki ng act i vi t i es of hi s br ot her , L ui s “D anny ” R i ver a . N o s peci fi c quant i t i es of drugs w er e admi t t ed by 2 G o n z a le z in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e s e tw o tr ip s . P r i o rt o a n d a ts e n t e n c i n g , Go n z a l e z o b j e c t e d t o mo s to f

th e a s s e r t i o n s o f

th e P S R, w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f

P a ra g ra p h 8 , w h ich d e sc rib e d G o n z a lez ’s a d m iss io n s re g a rd in g h is o w n d ru g p u rc h a sin g a n d d istrib u tio n a c tiv iti e s. In p a rticu lar , G o n z a lez o b jec ted to Par agr aph 16 of the PSR w hi ch des cr i bed the drug di s t r i but i on act i vi t i es of G onzal ez a nd ot her s al l eged byG onzal ez’ s br ot her , L ui s R i ver a. Par agr aph 16 ut i l i zed thes e al l egat i ons a s a b a s is f

o r c a lc u la tin g th e q u a n tity o f h e ro in re le v a n t to G o n z a le z ’s o f f e n s e c o n d u c t. B as ed on thes e al l egat i ons , t he PSR concl uded thatG onzal ez w as “i nvol ved w i t h” appr oxi m at el yt w o ki l ogr ams of her oi n, and es t abl i s hed G onzal ez’ s bas e off ens e l evel at 3 2 , u n d e r t h e th e n -m a n d a to ry U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . A t se n ten c in g , the G o v e rn m e n t d id n o t o f f e r a n yw itn e ss e s to a ss ist th e c o u rt in r es ol vi ng t he di s put ed al l egat i ons r egar di ng G onzal ez’ s al l eged drug pur chas i ng and4

di s t r i but i on act i vi t i es , as cl ai m ed byL ui s R i ver a and r epor t ed i n t he PSR . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt, rec o g n izin g th e in h e re n t f a c tu a l d isp u te, a ttem p ted to lim it i ts s e n ten c in g a n a ly sis t o cons i deronl yt he conduc tactual l yadmi tt ed byG onzal ez. T he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed t he PSR ’ s es t i m at e of a ppr oxi m at el y2 ki l ogr ams as the quant i t yof her oi n i nvol ved, r el y i ng upon t he s t at ementof the pr os ecut orthatthe ac t i vi t i es actual l yadmi t t ed by G onzal ez i m pl i cat ed an a m ountof her oi n equi val entt o t he PSR ’ s es t i m at e of appr oxi m at el yt w o ki l ogr ams of her oi n. H ow ever , the PSR ’ s drug quant i t ycal cul at i on w as notbas ed upon anyconductadmi t t ed byG onzal ez, butr atherw as bas ed s ol el yupon L ui s R i ver a’ s unpr oven al l egat i ons of the drug di s t r i but i on conductof G onzal ez a nd o th e rs . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed G onzal ez a tw o- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of re sp o n sib ili ty , b u t re

jec ted G o n z a lez ’s r e q u e st f o r a re d u c tio n f

o r “ m in im a l p a rticip a n t” s t atus pur s uantt o Sect i on 3B 1. 2 of the G ui del i nes . T he D i s t r i ctC our tr eas oned that G onzal ez w as notent i t l ed t o cons i der at i on form i ni m al part i ci pants t atus as a mat t erof law , b ec au se G o n za lez h ad n o t bee n ch arg ed w ith a c o n sp ir ac ycrim e. T h e D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d G onzal ez t o a t ot al of 120 m ont hs i ncar cer at i on, i m pos i ng cons ecut i ve t erm s of 60 m ont hs foreac h of the tw o i nt er s t at e tr avel offe ns es . G onzal ez appeal ed the s ent ence , r ai s i ng t he s ame i s s ues t hathe had i dent i fi ed atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, and al s o appea l i ng t he cons ecut i ve natur e of the t erm s of i ncar cer at i on. T hi s C our tvaca t ed the j udgm entand r emanded forr es ent enci ng pur s uantt o U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ),We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w G o n z a l e z ’ s c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . We 1 h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w G o n z a le z ’s s e n te n c e f o r u n re a s o n a b le n e s s u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a )( 1 ). U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220, 260 ( 2005) ( hol di ng that§§ 3742 ( a) and ( b) “cont i nue[] t o pr ovi de forappea l s fr om s ent enci ng deci s i ons ( i r r es pect i ve of w hethert he tr i al j udge s ent ence s w i t hi n orout s i de the G ui del i nes r ange i n t he exe r ci s e of h is d isc re tio n a ryp o w e r u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ))” ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 326 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a ta n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e n t e n c e i s “ i mp o s e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f l a w” u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a )( 1 )” ). 5 hol di ng t hatt he s ent enci ng i s s ues G onzal ez r ai s ed w oul d be “be s tdet erm i ned bythe D istric t C o u rt in th e f

irst in sta n c e ,” b u t co n f

irm in g th a t th e D istric t C o u rt w a s w ith in its d is c re tio n to im p o s e a c o n s e c u tiv e te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t. A tt he r es ent enci ng hear i ng, G onzal ez w as s ent ence d t o a t ot al t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 108 m onths , one y earl es s than had be en pr evi ous l yi m pos ed. T he s e n t e n c e c o n s i s t e d o f

o n e 6 0 - mo n t h t e r m, a n d a c o n s e c u t i v e 4 8 - mo n t h t e r m, f o rth e two in ter sta te tra v e l o f

f e n se s. G o n z a lez tim e lyf iled th is a p p e a l, i n w h ich h e re itera tes h is chal l enges t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s cal cul at i on of the amountof her oi n i nvol ved and the s cope of t he r el evant“r el at ed conduc t ” forthatanal y s i s , as w el l as hi s chal l enge t o t he D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f a n ya d ju stm e n t f

o r “ m in im a l p a rticip a n t” s tatu s. W e w ill v a c a te th e ju d g m e n t o f

se n ten c e a n d re m a n d f

o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is opi ni on. 1 II G onzal ez a s s er t s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr oneous l yadopt ed the PSR ’ s over s t at ed c a lcu latio n o f

th e a m o u n t o f

h e ro in in v o lv e d , an d c o n se q u e n tlye sta b lish e d a n im p ro p e rly h igh b ase o ff

en se lev el fo r sen tenc ing . W e re v iew fo r clear e rror the D istri ct C o u rt ’s6

fi ndi ngs of fa cti n s uppor tof the s ent ence . U ni t ed Stat es v. H

olm an , 168 F. 3d 655, 660 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Hi l l

s tr om , 988 F. 2d 448, 450 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . U ndert he clea r error stan d ard , “f

ac tual fin d ing s are clea rl yerro n eo u s if the f ind ing s are u n su p p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce , lack ad eq u ate e v iden ti arysu p p o rtin the rec o rd, are agai ns tt he cl earw ei ghtof the evi dence orw her e the D i s t r i ctC our thas m i s appr ehende d t he w ei ghtof the evi dence . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. R om an , 121 F. 3d 136, 140 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng Da v i n v . DOJ

, 6 0 F .3 d 1 0 4 3 , 1 0 4 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 )) . I n es t abl i s hi ng t he bas e off ens e l evel fors ent enci ng bas ed on a c al cul at i on of drug q u a n tity, th e G o v e rn m e n t b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e . U n itedS ta tes v . Miele , 989 F. 2d 659, 663 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . A ts ent enci ng, the D i s t r i ct C our tr ecogni zed thatG onzal ez ha d obj ect ed t o t he PSR ’ s cal cul at i on thatthe amountof her oi n i nvol ved cons t i tut ed appr oxi m at el ytw o ki l ogr ams, beca us e thatcal cul at i on w as pr emi s ed on conduc tt hathad notbeen a dm i t t ed byG onzal ez, had notbeen s uppor t ed by a n yw itn e ss tes tim o n ya t th e h e a rin g , an d f u rth e r in c lu d e d d ru g a m o u n ts a ttribu tab le to th e a c tio n s o f

m e m b e rs o f

th e d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g e n te rp ri s e . U nfor tunat el y , t he l earned courtw as l ed as t r aybythe pr os ecut or ’ s i ns i s t ence t hat t he amountof her oi n cal cul at ed bythe PSR w as equi val entt o t he amounti m pl i cat ed by G onzal ez’ s admi t t ed conduc t . Si gni fi cant l y , G onzal ez’ s admi s s i ons do notr efl ectan amount of her oi n t hati s eas i l ym eas ur ed i n gr ams; r ather , the admi s s i ons des cr i be t ransact i on s i n “b un dles ” of h eroi n. N o tes t i m on yor evi den ce i n the prosecut i on ’s caseA tor al ar gum ent , t he att or neyforthe G overnm entconce ded thatthe pr os ecut orat 2 s ent enci ng had notpr es ent ed the D i s t r i ctC our tw i t h a corr ectanal y s i s of the quant i t yof h ero in inv o lved . W e c o m m en t th e a tt o rne yfo r th e G o v ern m en t fo r his ca n d o r. W e e x p e c t th a t u p o n re m a n d f o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s re g a rd in g th e a m o u n t o f h e ro in 3 i m pl i cat ed byG onzal ez’ s conduct , t he D i s t r i ctC ourtw i l l addr es s G onzal ez’ s cont ent i on that L u is R ivera ’s all eg ati o n s reg ard ing G o n za lez’s allege d d rug d istri b u ti o n ac ti v it ies are unr el i abl e bec aus e G onzal ez c l ai m s he w as i ncar cer at ed fors om e of the t i m e per i ods du ri ng w hich R i vera cl ai m s G on zal ez w as purchasi ng or di stri bu t i ng drugs. W e al so expec tt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l addr es s the G overnm ent ’ s ar gum entthatG onzal ez may b e h e l d a c c o u n t a b l e f

o rt h e d ru g d i s t r i b u t i o n a c t i v i t i e s o f th e c o n s p i r a c y. 7 s erved t o es t abl i s h t he natur e of a “bundl e” of her oi n, and thus the G overnm enthad not ca rri ed it s b u rde n o f p roo f re g ard ing d rug q u an ti ty . A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 2
err oneous concl us i on, abett ed byt he mi s s t at ementof the pr os ecut or , thatthe conduc t admi t t ed byG onzal ez i m pl i cat ed an a m ountequi val entt o al m os ttw o ki l ogr ams of h e ro in , w a s n o t su p p o rte d b yth e e v id e n c e b e f o re th e c o u rt. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill v a c a te t he j udgm entand r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforfur t herpr ocee di ngs r egar di ng the amount of her oi n i m pl i cat ed byG onzal ez’ s conduct , and anyotherr el evantconductfor w hi ch G onzal ez i s acc ount abl e. 3 III W i t h r egar d t o G onzal ez’ s cont ent i on thathe w as err oneous l ydeni ed cons i der at i on f o r a re d u c tio n in se n ten c e a s a “ m in im a l p a rticip a n t” u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 ., w e n o te t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tr efus ed t o cons i derG onzal ez’ s el i gi bi l i t yas a “mi ni m al par t i ci pant ” as a mat t erof l aw , beca us e G onzal ez ha d notbeen c har ged w i t h a cons pi r acy c rim e . B e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt f ra m e d its d e c isio n a s a leg a l, rath e r th a n f a c tu a l,8

m a tte r, w e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w . U nited S tates v. B ernard , 3 7 3 F . 3 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 1 (3d C ir . 2004) . M or eover , pl enaryr evi ew i s appr opr i at e bec aus e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on c o n s titu te s a n in te rp re ta tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s . U

nited S tates v. B ernard , 373 F. 3d 339, 3 4 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). S ect i on 3B 1. 2 o f t he G uidel i nes, enti t l ed “M i t i gati ng R ole, ” provides: B as ed on the def

endant ’ s r ol e i n t he off

ens e, decr eas e the o f f e n se lev e l as f

o llo w s: ( a) I f the def

endantw as a mi ni m al part i ci panti n anycr i m i nal act i vity , decrease by4 level s. ( b) I f the def

endantw as a mi norpart i ci panti n anycr i m i nal act i vity , decrease by2 level s. In cases fal l i ng betw een (a) and (b), decrease by3 level s. U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 . T h e c o m m e n tar yto th a t se c tio n in d ica tes th a t a m iti g a tin g ro le adj us t m enti s “notappl i cabl e unl es s m or e than one pa r t i ci pantw as i nvol ved i n t he offe ns e. ” I

d. atA ppl i cat i on N ot e 2. “A ccor di ngl y , an adj us t m entunderthi s gui del i ne m ayno tapp l yt o a d efen dan tw ho i s the o nlydefe nd ant conv i ct ed o f an o ffen se unles s t hatoffe ns e i nvol ved otherpar t i ci pant s i n addi t i on t o t he def endant . ” Id
. T he appl i cat i on not es offe rfur t hergui dance fort he i m pl ement at i on of thi s adj us t m entgui del i ne:

A defe ndantw ho i s acc ount abl e under§1B 1. 3 ( R el evant C o n d u c t) o n lyf

o r th e c o n d u c t in w h ich th e d e f e n d a n t p e rso n a lly w as i nvol ved and w ho per form s a l i m i t ed func t i on i n conce r t ed cr i m i nal act i vi t yi s notpr ecl u d ed fr om cons i der at i on foran adj us t m entunder t hi s gui del i ne. Forexampl e, a def endantw ho i s convi cted o f a drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e, w hos e r ol e i n that o f f e 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 is9 acc ount a b l e o n l yf

o rt h e q u a n t i t yo f

d ru g s t h e d e f

e n d a nt per s onal l yt r ans por t ed ors t or ed i s notpr ecl uded fr om c o n s id e ra tio n f

o r a n a d ju s tm e n t u n d e r t h is g u id e lin e . I d. at A p p li ca ti o n N o te 3(A ). A tt he i ni t i al s ent enci ng hear i ng, the G overnm entar gued thatG onzal ez w as not ent i t l ed t o cons i der at i on fora mi ni m al part i ci pantadj us t m entbeca us e he w as notchar ged w i t h par t i ci pat i on i n a drug t r aff i cki ng cons pi r acy , butw as i ns t ead c har ged w i t h t r avel i ng t o N ew Y or k t o fac i l i t at e nar cot i cs t r aff i cki ng. T he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the G overnm ent ’ s i nt erpr et at i on, rul i ng t hat“as a l egal m at t er , ” the adj us t m entw as not a v a i l a b l e t o G o n z a l e z b e c a u s e h e w a s n o tc h a r g e d w i t h b e i n g a p a r to f a c o n s p i r a c y. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in its in terp re tatio n o f th e m iti g a tin g ro le gui del i ne, bydet erm i ni ng, as a l egal m att er , thatG onzal ez w as pr ecl uded fr om cons i der at i on beca us e he w as notchar ged w i t h a cons pi r acyoffe ns e. G onzal ez pl ed gui l t yt o t w o count s of i nt er s t at e tr avel i n ai d of drug r acke t eer i ng. W e not e thateven t hough G onzal ez w as t he s ol e part i ci pantchar ged w i t h t he i nt er s t at e tr avel offe ns e, the natur e of the off

ens e as an ac t i vi t yi n ai d of r acke t eer i ng nece s s ar i l yi m pl i es the exi s t ence o f a r a c k e t e e r i n g e n t e rp r i s e , a n d h e n c e i m p l i c a t e s “ c o n c e r t e d c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y” under t aken byot herm ember s of the drug- t r aff i cki ng ent erpr i s e. T he fa ctthatG onzal ez w a s n o t co n v icte d o f

a c o n sp ira c yo f

f e n se d o e s n o t p re c lu d e a c o u rt f ro m c o n sid e rin g h im as par tof a l ar gerent erpr i s e, and does notaut om at i cal l ydi ct at e thathe ca nnotbe vi ew ed a s a m in im a l o r m in o r p a rt ic ip a n t in p a rt ic u la r c o n d u c t in w h ic h o th e rs a ls o p a rt ic ip a te d .W e e x p re ss n o c o n c lu sio n a s to w h e th e r G o n z a lez is e n tit led to a n ym iti g a tin g ro le 4 a d ju s tm e n t, a s s u c h a d e te rm in a tio n is a f a c tu a l m a tte r r e s e rv e d to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . See U . S. S. G . § 3B I . 2, A ppl i cat i on N ot e 3( C ) ( s t at i ng thata mi t i gat i ng r ol e adj us t m ent d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s “ h e a v i l y d e p e n d e n tu p o n th e f a c t s o f th e p a r t i c u l a rc a s e ” ) . N o t a b l y, Go nzale z may

no t w arrant a

ny mitig atin gro lea dju stm e nt a s th ec ha rg eof int e rs tatetrave l in

a id of rackete eringas a result of a plea barg ain is “an of

fensesignific antly

less serious than war rante d by his actual c riminal conduct,”U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, Application Note 3(B ), since he would alre ady

have rece ived, in essenc e, a mitig atingrole re duction by virtue of the c onviction o n a l e s s e r c h arg e . W e expe ctt hat , upon r emand, the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l cons i deral l of thes e f ac tors in m ak ing it s fa ctua l fi n d ing s reg ard ing G o n za lez’s eligibil ityfo r a m itig a tin g ro le a d

ju s tm e n t. 10 I n l i ghtof the for egoi ng, w e fi nd thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tqui t e under s t andabl yerr ed i n rul i ng on t hi s i s s ue. T he fa ctt hatG onzal ez w as notchar ged w i t h orconvi ct ed of a cons pi r acyoffe ns e does notpr ecl ude cons i der at i on fora mi t i gat i ng r ol e adj us t m ent , and w e r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforfur t herpr ocee di ngs and fa ctual fi ndi ngs r egar di ng G o n z a lez ’s e lig ib ili tyf

o r a m iti g a tin g ro le a d

ju stm e n t. 4 IV In c o n c lu sio n , w e w ill v a c a te th e ju d g m e n t o f se n ten c e in th is c a se , an d w ill r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforfac tual fi ndi ngs and ana l y s i s of: ( 1) the s cope of the “rel evan tcon du ct ” for w hich G on zal ez w i l l be h el d acco un t able ( i . e. , w hetherthe b ase o f f e n se lev e l ca lcu latio n w ill c o n sis t o f o n lyth o se q u a n tit ies o f d ru g s a ttribu tab le to G o n z a lez ’s a c tio n s, o r w h e th e r su c h c a lcu latio n w ill in c lu d e q u a n tit ies a ttribu tab le to ot herm ember s of the drug t r aff i cki ng ent erpr i s e) ; ( 2) the quant i t yof her oi n i m pl i cat ed by G onzal ez’ s act s and anyot herr el evantconductforw hi ch G onzal ez i s acc ount abl e; and (3 ) w h e th e r G o n z a le z is e n title d to a m itig a tin g ro le re d u c tio n .