Opinion ID: 173184
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issue Specific to Barraza-Martinez

Text: Barraza-Martinez also argues the district court erred in determining he was not a minor participant under USSG § 3B1.2(b). A defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an adjustment under § 3B1.2(b) is warranted. United States v. Martinez, 512 F.3d 1268, 1275 (10th Cir. 2008). The denial of a minor participant adjustment represents a factual finding this court reviews for clear error. Id. A minor participant adjustment applies only to “a defendant who plays a part in committing the offense that makes him substantially less culpable than the average participant.” USSG § 3B1.2 cmt. -12- n.3(A). The Guidelines acknowledge this determination is “heavily dependent upon the facts of the particular case,” and that, as a result, “the court, in weighing the totality of the circumstances, is not required to find, based solely on the defendant’s bare assertion, that such a role adjustment is warranted.” Id. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). Barraza-Martinez argues his duties were limited to picking up the truck and driving it to a particular location and that he therefore played a very minor role, especially in light of the complexity of this particular drug trafficking operation. This court, however, has previously determined that couriers such as BarrazaMartinez “are an indispensable component of drug dealing networks.” United States v. Rangel-Arreola, 991 F.2d 1519, 1524 (10th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Calderon-Porras, 911 F.2d 421, 423-24 (10th Cir. 1990) (“The mere fact that a defendant is a courier in a drug-smuggling operation does not entitle that defendant to be classified as a minimal participant.”). In denying BarrazaMartinez’s request for a minor participant adjustment, the district court considered the large amount of cocaine seized in this case, the level of sophistication of the drug-trafficking operation, and the level of thought and planning Barraza-Martinez engaged in to facilitate his participation. The district court’s factual determinations were based on a permissible view of the evidence. As a result, it was not clear error to deny Barraza-Martinez the minor participant adjustment. -13-