UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 20 CR 577-7

)

) Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo

ENRIQUE HOLLINS, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM REGARDING MINIMAL PARTICIPANT - §3B1.2

Now comes Defendant, Enrique Hollins, by and through his attorney, Jeffrey J. Levine, and,

for his Memorandum Regarding Minimal Participant - Guideline §3B1.2, states as follows:

1. Contrary to the Presentence Investigation Report, which does not recommend a decrease

to the offense level as a result of Mr. Hollins’ minimal participation in the scheme, both the

Guideline and case law indicate that he should receive the decrease.

2. Sentencing Guideline Section 3B1.2 provides for two, three and four level decreases inthe

offense level, depending on the defendant’s mitigating role in the offense. Section 3B1.2(a), provides

for a four level decrease in the offense level if the defendant was a minimal participant in the

criminal activity.

3. The decreases in the offense level are based on the totality of the circumstances and are

heavily dependent on the facts of the particular case. See: §3B1.2, comment, note 3(C).

Legal Basis

4. The reduction is appropriate where the defendant was substantially less culpable than the

conspiracy’s other participants. United States v. DePriest, 6 F.3d 1201,1214 (7 Cir. 1993). In order th
to determine what level downward adjustment is warranted, a comparison must be made to the

conduct of co-participants in the case at hand. United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1283 (9th

Cir. 2006).

5. A four level reduction for minimal participants is intended to apply to individuals who are

plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group. See: §3B1.2,

Comment, note 4. An individual’s lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure

of the enterprise and of the activities of others is indicative of a role as a minimal participant. Id. 

6. Given that entitlement to a mitigating-role adjustment is “heavilydependent upon the facts

of the particular case,” a defendant must demonstrate the individual’s role in the conspiracy as a

whole, the length of his involvement in it, his relationship to other participants, his potential

financial gain and his knowledge of the conspiracy. United States v. Diaz-Rios, 706 F.3d 795, 799

(7 Cir. 2013). th

Factual Basis

7. As noted in Mr. Hollins’ Sentencing Memorandum, his involvement in the scheme was

peripheral. As delineated in his December 9, 2022 Plea Agreement, Mr. Hollins’ involvement in the

scheme amounted to telephone calls on two days, a transfer of a telephone, narcotics and proceeds

and a single sale of controlled substances. His specific participation in the scheme was as follows:

a. June 14, 2020. Two telephone conversations with a co-defendant regarding the

transfer of a phone.

b. August 17, 2020. Two telephone conversations with a co-defendant, at 8:31 a.m.

and 8:33 a.m. and a transfer of a phone, narcotics and proceeds to another codefendant at 9:52 a.m.

c. August 25, 2020. Arranged for and made a sale of 3.404 grams of a substance

containing a controlled substances in exchange for payment of $100.00.

See: 12/09/22 Plea Agreement, Dkt. No. 528, at pp. 3-6.
8. Based on the actions on those three days, Mr. Hollins’ played a minimal role in the 132

day conspiracy. (The PSI Report also notes a time period of 79 days, from June 14, 2020 to

September 1, 2020). See: PSI Report at par. 26. Mr. Hollins had no relationship to other participants

and made little if any financial gain as a result of his actions. There is no indication that he had any

knowledge of the scope or duration of the conspiracy.

9. The government has not provided any indication that Mr. Hollins’ involvement in the

scheme exceeded the three days referenced in their Version of the Offense, the Plea Agreement and

the Presentence Investigation Report.

10. Despite his extremely limited involvement and the acknowledgment in the PSI Report

that Mr. Hollins: 

...is not known to have exercised any decision-making authority

and did not participate in the planning or organizing the criminal 

activity

the Probation Office did not recommend a mitigating role in the offense. See: PSI Report at par. 30.

This is consistent with the Office’s conclusion that Mr. Hollins should be held responsible for the

full amount of drugs attributable to the conspiracy. See: PSI Report at pars. 24-7. 

11. Both the government and the Probation Department seek to hold Mr. Hollins accountable

for distributing 659.65 grams of fentanyl laced heroin and 254.38 grams of cocaine base See:

December 21, 2022, Government’s Version of Offense at page 3; PSI Report at Pars. 12, 17, 25, 26

and 27. 

12. The United States Attorney General has recently advised federal prosecutors to avoid

holding nonviolent offenders with peripheral involvement in schemes responsible under mandatory

minimum sentencing requirements. See: 12/16/22 Attorney General Memorandum, Sentencing

Exhibit 41
Conclusion

13. While Mr. Hollins’ involvement in a scheme amounted to a few days participation and

a single $100.00 drug sale, both the government and the Probation Office seek to hold him as

responsible as the other participants in the scheme. It is their position that his actions are as culpable

as all others involved in the charged conspiracy. There is no basis for this position under the

Sentencing Guidelines or applicable law.

14. Section 3553(a)(1) requires that, in addition to the history and characteristics of a

defendant, a sentencing court must consider the nature and circumstances of the offense with regard

to each individual defendant. The statute trumps any guideline or policy statement to the contrary.

See: Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38, 44-5 (1993); United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751,

757 (1997).

15. Given Mr. Hollins minimal involvement in the scheme, pursuant to Section 3B1.2(a), he

should be granted a four-level decrease in his offense level.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey J. Levine

Attorney for the Defendant

Enrique Hollins

JEFFREY J. LEVINE

19 South La Salle Street

Suite 702

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 372 - 4600

Dated: March 17, 2023