Opinion ID: 535320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of Guideline Sec. 3B1.2

Text: 6 Guideline Sec. 3B1.2 provides for a two-level reduction in the base offense level if the defendant was a minor participant in the offense, and a four-level reduction if he was a minimal participant. The court accepted the presentence report's conclusion that Christman was a minor participant, and reduced his offense level two points. He argues that the court erred because he was really a minimal participant. 7 The downward adjustment under Sec. 3B1.2 is to be used infrequently. United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam). A district court's finding that a defendant does not qualify for minimal or minor participant status is, as the commentary points out, 'heavily dependent on the facts of the particular case,' and should be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Id. (citations omitted). 8 The court's finding that Christman was a minor rather than minimal participant was not clearly erroneous. Christman argues that he was a minimal participant in the conspiracy. He was sentenced, however, based on the charge of using a telephone in the commission of a drug-related offense, not for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Because there was evidence that he used the telephone to negotiate the price and quantity of drugs, the court reasonably concluded that his participation in this crime was not minimal. There was no error.