Opinion ID: 761559
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sentence Reduction for Minimal Participation

Text: 8 Although Correa was granted a two-level reduction for a minor role, he argues that he was entitled to a four-level role reduction for minimal participation under United States Sentencing Guidelines section 3B1.2. We have held that the determination under § 3B1.2 of whether a defendant is a minor or a minimal participant in an offense may be reversed if clearly erroneous. United States v. Westerman, 973 F.2d 1422, 1428 (8th Cir.1992). The burden is on the defendant to prove that he warrants the reduction. United States v. Chatman, 119 F.3d 1335, 1341 (8th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 434, 139 L.Ed.2d 333 (1997). We conclude that the district court's finding that Correa was a minor participant is not clearly erroneous. 9 The United States Sentencing Guidelines define a minor participant as any participant who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 3B1.2, comment (n.3)(Nov.1998). In describing minimal participation, the commentary provides: 10 It is intended to cover defendants who are plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group. Under this provision, the defendant'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. 11 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment (n.1). The guidelines also provide that the downward adjustment for a minimal participant will be used infrequently. Id. at n. 2. 12 Correa contends that he was entitled to the reduction for minimal participation because he was merely a courier. Correa further contends that he lacked the knowledge of the scope and structure of the drug scheme involved. We disagree. 13 The court found that [t]here were several incidents in which the jury found that Mr. Correa was involved and that those circumstances only qualified him for the minor participant reduction. This finding is not clear error. It is undisputed that Correa was present both on May 6, 1997, and May 9, 1997. Also he did more than simply hand over the drugs on May 9; he helped negotiate the price.