Opinion ID: 195005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffective Assistance by Appellate Counsel

Text: 15 Moreno alleges that the lawyer who prosecuted her appeal was ineffective because he failed to appeal her sentence. According to Moreno, the district court's decision not to decrease her base offense level by four levels for her allegedly minimal role in the conspiracy, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, was erroneous because the evidence showed that she was the least culpable of the conspirators and because the court's decision conflicted with its own findings at sentencing. We cannot say that the court's refusal to grant Moreno the requested four-level reduction was clearly erroneous, and we see no conflict between the findings the court made at sentencing and its decision not to grant the downward adjustment. 16 Although section 3B1.2 indicates that a reduction in base offense level is warranted for defendants who are plainly among the least culpable of a group engaged in criminal activity, guideline commentary also says that a 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 minimal participant. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a), comment. (n.1) (Nov. 1990). The commentary says further that a downward adjustment for minimal participation is to be used infrequently, and gives as an example of a minimal participant someone whose only role is to offload part of a single marijuana shipment or to be courier for a single smuggling transaction of a small amount of drugs. Id. (n.2). At sentencing, the court found that Moreno knew what was going on, discounted Gonzalez's testimony that Moreno was on the periphery of the conspiracy, and concluded that the evidence showed that she was not a minimal participant in the conspiracy, conclusions which were not clearly erroneous in light of the evidence presented at trial. We note as well that the evidence showed that the conspiracy to which Moreno was a party was ongoing and contemplated multiple transactions involving significant quantities of cocaine. Accordingly, we conclude that the court's determination that Moreno was not a minimal participant was justified. Consequently, appellate counsel's failure to appeal the court's refusal to make the requested downward adjustment did not prejudice Moreno and so was not ineffective assistance of counsel. 17 The judgment of the district court is affirmed.