1

08- 6281- cr U SA v. V ar ga s UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Rulings by summ ary ord er do no t have precedent ial effect. Citatio n to a summ ary order filed on or

after January 1, 2007, is permit ted and is governed by F ederal Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and thi s court’s Local Rule 32.1 .1. When citing a summ ary ord er in a d oc um en t f

il edwi thth is c ou r t, a p ar ty m us t c it e ei th er

th e F ed er al

App en di x o r

an el ect r on ic da ta ba se (

wi thth e n ot at io n " su m m ar y o r de r ") . A p ar ty

ci ti ng a su m m ar

y o r de r must serve a copy of iton any part y not r epresented by cou nsel. Ata st at edte r mof

th e U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t o f Ap pe al s f or th e S eco nd

Cir cu it , h el d a t th e D an ie l P at r ic k Mo yn ih anUn it edSt at es Co ur th ou se, 500 P ear l S tr eet , i n t he Cit

y o f N ew York, on th e twenty-f

irst day of May, two t housand and t en. PR E SE NT: J OS É A. C AB R ANES , R O BERT A. K

A T ZMA NN , D ENNY C H IN , Circuit Jud

ges . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x U NI T ED S TATES O F A M ERI CA ,

Appellee ,
v. No . 08 -6 281 -c r
T O M AS V

ARGAS , De

fe ndant -A ppella nt .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x2

F OR DE F EN DAN T- AP P ELLAN T: B R EN DA N W H I TE , Whit e & Whit e, N ew Yor k, N Y. F OR AP P ELLEE : K AT HER I NE P O LK F AI LL A , As s is tan t U ni te d St ate s At to r ney

(P r eet B har ar a, U ni te d S tat es At to r ney , Sar ah Y. Lai, A s s is tan t U ni te d St ate s At to r ney , on the brief ), Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern Di s tr ict of New Yor k, N ew Yo r k, N Y. Appea l from a judgment of the United States Distr ict Court for the Southern Dis trict of New Yor k ( Sid ney

H. St ein , Judge

). UPON CONSIDERAT ION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJU DG ED , AN D D ECR EED tha t th e j ud gm en t of the Di stri ctC ou rt i s AF F IRME D
. Defendant-appel lant Tomas Vargas (“defendant” or “Va rgas”) appeal s fr om a judgment of conviction e ntered Decembe r 22, 2008. Defenda nt was convicte d, after entering a ple a of guilty, of on e co un t o f c on s pi r acy t o l aun der nar cot ics pr oce eds invio lat

io n o f 1 8 U. S.C. § 19 56(a)( 1) (B )( i) andth er eaf

te r s ent enc ed p r

in cip ally t o 1 21 m on th s ’ im pr is on men t. Onapp eal, def end ant challenges only his sentence, a rguing that the Distr ict Court’s denial of a dow nward adjustment for his “minor role” in the offense was clea rly erroneous. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaini ng fa ctual andpr oce du r al his to ry of th e cas e. “We review for clea r err or a sentencing court’s finding that a defenda nt did not play a minor r ol e inth e of

fe ns e.” Uni

te d St ate s v . B ru ns htein , 34 4 F .3d91, 102 (2 d Ci r . 20 03) (quo ti ng United Sta tes v. Cas tano , 23 4 F .3d111 , 11 3 (

2dCir . 20 00) ). A de fe nd ant bear s th e bu r denof

pr ov in g by a pr epo nd er ance of

th e evi den ce that

he i s ent it ledto a mi no r

r ol e adj us tm ent . Id

. Section 3B1.2(b) of the United States Sentenc ing Guideline s (“U.S.S.G.” or the “Guideline s”) pr ovides that a defenda nt’s of fense level shall be decrea sed by 2 leve ls if the def end ant was a “m in or

par ti cip ant ” inth e of

fe ns e. U .S. S.G . § 3 B 1.2 (b ). T he c om men tar y t o that Guid eli ne d ef

in es “m in or

par ti cip ant ” as a def

end ant “wh o i s les s culpab le thanmo s t o th er par ti cip ant s , b ut

who s e r ol e co ul d n ot

be d es cr ib ed as mi ni mal .” Id

. cmt. n.5. The commentary a lso ma ke s cl ea r th a t no mi ti ga ti ng rol e a dj ustm en t i s a pp rop ria te un le ss ade fe nd a nt i s “ su bst anti all y les s culpab le thanth e av er

ag e pa rt ic ipant .” Id
. cmt . n .3( A) (e mp has es add ed) ; cf. Stinson v. United Sta tes , 50 8 U .S . 3 6, 38 (1 99 3) (“ [C ]o mme nta ry in the Guid el in es M a nu a l t ha t i nte rpre ts orex pl ain s a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsist ent with, or a plai nly erroneous reading of, that guideli ne.”).3

We hav e lo ng r eco gni zedth at d ef end ant s —s uchas Vargas —wh os e r ol e ina cr im in al ent erpr is e is mer ely that

of cou r ier ar e no t au to mat

ically en ti tl ed t o a “ mi no r

r ol e” ad ju s tm ent . Uni te d St ate s v . Ga rc ia , 920 F.2d 153, 15 5 (2d Cir. 1990). R ather, “[t]he culpa bility of a defenda nt courier must

depend ne cessarily on such factors as the nature of the defendant’s relationship to other participants, the importance of the defendant’s ac tions to the success of the venture, and the def end ant ’s awar ene s s of

th e natur e ands cop e of

th e cr im in al en te rpr

is e.” Id
. Applying those factors , we ha ve little trouble conc luding that the District Court’s finding th at V argas was no t e nt

it ledto a mi no r

r ol e adj us tm ent

was no t c lear

ly err on eou s . F ir s t, def

end ant ’s “r elat io ns hi p t o o th er

par ti cip ant s ” s ugg es ts th at h e was no t a min or par ti cip ant . Se e i

d. Altho ugh Vargas di d n ot

per s on ally car ry any

curr enc y, his gir

lf r ien d act ed as th e pr

im ary co ur

ier with Var gas fo llo wing cl os ely b ehi ndina s epar ate car . T he m ann er inwhi ch the c r

im in al act ivi ty occ ur r ed s ugg es ts th at V argas andhi s gir lf r ien d act ed as par tn er s . At th e ver y lea s t, th er e is no evi den ce that Vargas ’s r ol e was s ub or di nat e. I t w as cer tai nly no t “ clea r er r or ” f or th e Di s tr ict Cou r t t o f

in d that Varga s did not play a subordinate role merely be cause he rode in a separate ca r and did not per s on ally han dl e any

curr enc y. Se e B ru ns

htein , 34 4 F .3dat 1 02. Varga s’s “aw areness of the nature and scope of the criminal enterprise” also suppor ts the Di s tr ict Cou r t’ s fi ndin g that

he w as no t a min or

par ti cip ant . Se e G arc

ia , 920 F.2d at 155. By entering apl ea of g ui lty, Va rga s a dm it te d to a tte mp ti ng to c on ce a l t he pro ce ed s of n a rc oti cs sa le s. He f ur th er admitted to knowing tha t approximately $ 500,000 w as being transported and that it was destined for a f or eign co un tr

y. Fi nally, Vargas kn ew o f a ndhadbee n i ns id e the b uildin g wh er e the n ar cot ics proceeds were bei ng stor ed prior to tr ansport. I t was, therefore, not clearly e rroneous for the Di s tr ict Cou r t t o f

in d that def end ant ’s “awar ene s s of

th e natur e ands cop e of

th e cr im in al ent erpr is e” ex ceed ed that

of a “m in or par ti cip ant .” Se e i

d. ; see also U.S .S. G. § 3B 1.2 (b ) &cmt . n .5. I n s um , we c on clu de that

th e Di s tr ict Cou r t didno t c om mi t “ clea r er r or ” infi ndin g that de fe nd a nt w a s no t a “m in or p a rti ci pa nt” in the ch a rge d o ffe nse or i n d ec li ni ng to r ed uc e h is o ffe nse lev el ac cor di ngl

y. Se e B ru ns

htein , 34 4 F .3dat 1 02.

CONCLUSI ON We ha ve considered a ll of defendant’s arguments and find them to be without merit. For the fore go in g re a son s, t he ju dg me nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AF F IRME D
. FOR THE C OU R

T, Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court