Opinion ID: 2995473
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Sentencing Reduction for

Text: Minor Role Francisco also contends that he should have received a two-point adjustment to his offense level under sec. 3B1.2(b) of the sentencing guidelines. Section 3B1.2(b) allows a judge to decrease the offense level by two [i]f the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal activity. A minor participant is a participant who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal. U.S.S.G. sec. 3B1.2, comment (n. 3). The reduction is often used with a conspiracy charge to ensure that the defendant’s sentence, which may be based on the relevant conduct of co-conspirators, does not reflect conduct other than his own. See United States v. Mojica, 185 F.3d 780, 791 (7th Cir. 1999). At the sentencing hearing, Francisco bore the burden of demonstrating that the reduction was warranted. He chose to carry that burden by resting solely on his admission during his guilty plea and the government’s version of the offense; he did not offer any additional evidence that may have supported his request. The district court denied the reduction and sentenced him accordingly. Because the district court’s conclusion is heavily dependent on the facts, we review it only for clear error. See United States v. Lampkins, 47 F.3d 175, 180 (7th Cir. 1995). On appeal, Francisco argues that he was clearly less responsible than Guadalupe since it was Guadalupe who drove the van to the meeting site to deliver the narcotics. Vargas stated in his plea admission, however, that he met with both of the defendants to negotiate the deal. Additionally, Francisco did not dispute that he was responsible for the safekeeping of the cocaine at the residence. Last, and in this circuit most important, the district court held him accountable only for the 50 grams of cocaine that were found in a house where he was staying. In other words, he was sentenced only for drugs that he himself had his hands on at the house, which made the downward departure neither necessary, nor, under our interpretation of the existing guidelines, appropriate. See Lampkins, 47 F.3d at 180-81.