Opinion ID: 3014004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: (Opinion Filed: July 8, 2004 ) On August 29, 2001, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Lisa Ann Minutoli (“Minutoli”). Stanton D. Levenson, Esq. (Argued) Count One charged Minutoli w ith 1715 Gulf Tower possession with intent to distribute a Pittsburgh, PA 15219 mixture and substance containing a 1 detectable amount of 3,4- party, the coercion and m e t h y le n e d i o x y m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e duress does not rise to the (MDMA), in the form of “Ecstasy” tablets, l e v e l t h a t w a r r a n ts in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and de parture. (emphasis 841(b)(1)(C); and Count Two charged added). unlawful importation into the United States of said tablets, in violation of 21 In denying her request for an adjustment U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(b)(3). M inutoli for minor role, the District Court stated: pled guilty to Count Two, and Count One was subsequently dismissed. My understanding of this case and what I believe has It was not disputed that under the been demonstrated by the United States Sentencing Guidelines e v i d e n c e is that t h e (USSG), Minutoli’s base offense level was defendant was not just a 29 and her criminal history category was I, mere, to use an adjective, resulting in a range of 87-108 months’ courier. Her importance to imprisonment. Prior to sentencing, the success of the venture however, Minutoli moved for a downward was vital. departure, based on reduced mental  capacity (USSG § 5K2.13) and coercion But, as I indicated, I do not and duress (USSG § 5K2.12), and for a believe, based on the two-level reduction in her offense level as evidence, that you were a a minor participant. (USSG § 3B1.2(b)). minor participant because of The District Court denied these requests your importance, your and, on July 25, 2002, sentenced Minutoli knowledge of these – the to 87 months’ imprisonment, to be nature and scope of the followed by three years’ supervised enterprise. release. In denying the downward departure, the District Court stated, in part: Minutoli raises two issues on appeal. First, she contends that the District [W]hile I recognize my Court made a factual error in concluding ability to depart under that the testimony at the sentencing 5K2.12, without threat of hearing did not support a finding of physical injury resulting physical threats and, thus, she was wrongly from unlawful actions of a denied a downward departure under § third party, which I don’t 5K2.12. Second, she contends that as a believe was in the testimony, “mere” drug courier, she was entitled to a or substantial damage to downward adjustment for her minor role in property resulting from unlawful action of a third 2 the offense.1 We will affirm the judgment knew as David, but whose name was, in and sentence. fact, Elly, and with whom she carried on a romantic relationship for four months.