Opinion ID: 741804
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Reduction for Mitigating Role for Hastings

Text: 55 Hastings's presentence report recommended that she receive a four-level reduction in her offense level as a minimal participant pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a). Hastings alternatively argued that she is entitled to at least a two-level reduction under § 3B1.2(b) as a minor participant. The district court declined to apply either reduction. We review the district court's determination of § 3B1.2 adjustments for clear error. United States v. Field, 110 F.3d 587, 590 (8th Cir.1997). 56 A four-level reduction under § 3B1.2(a) is appropriate for defendants who are plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n. 1). It is meant to be used infrequently and is appropriate, for example, for someone who played no other role in a very large drug smuggling operation than to offload part of a single marihuana shipment, or in a case where an individual was recruited as a courier for a single smuggling transaction involving a small amount of drugs. Id. (n.2). Hastings's conduct in this case is not comparable to the infrequent situations contemplated by the guideline. Hastings was a high-ranking bank officer and a member of the board, knew of the scheme, and concealed Van Brocklin's conduct from the board and OTS. Hastings was present when Van Brocklin received $750,000 in bribe money and personally participated in transferring the funds that were the subject of her money laundering convictions. The court's denial of a four-level adjustment was not clearly erroneous. 57 Whether Hastings should have at least received a two-level reduction as a minor participant is a closer question. For purposes of § 3B1.2(b), a minor participant means any participant who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n. 3). Hastings did not receive any direct share of the proceeds of the loan sales, and it is clear that Van Brocklin, Atterberry, and Pyatt were the masterminds of the deal. Given the facts described previously, however, we cannot conclude that the district court clearly erred in denying a two-level reduction. 10 58 Hastings also appeals the district court's denial of her motion for a downward departure. The record shows that the district court recognized that it had authority to depart downward, but refused to exercise its discretion to do so. Sentencing Tr. at 167. Such a discretionary refusal to grant a downward departure is not reviewable. United States v. McCarthy, 97 F.3d 1562, 1578 (8th Cir.1996). 59