Opinion ID: 699616
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: USSG Sec. 3B1.2(b)

Text: 13 USSG Sec. 3B1.2(b) provides for a two-level reduction in offense level if the defendant was a minor participant in the crime. The USSG Application Notes define a minor participant as any participant who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal. USSG Sec. 3B1.2, comment. (n. 3). Thompson argues that his role in the conspiracy was relatively minor compared to that of his drug suppliers. We review the district court's denial of a two-point minor participant reduction under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Rayner, 2 F.3d 286, 288 (8th Cir.1993). 14 The district court found that Thompson was not entitled to a two-point minor participant reduction. We agree. Thompson bears the burden of proving his entitlement to the minor participant reduction. United States v. Dinges, 917 F.2d 1133, 1135 (8th Cir.1990). This Court rejected an argument similar to Thompson's in United States v. Ellis, 890 F.2d 1040 (8th Cir.1989), when it observed, the fact that another participant supplied the drugs does not mean that [the defendant's] role was only minor. Id. at 1041. Taken to its logical conclusion, Thompson's position would mean that every participant in every drug distribution scheme would be presumably entitled to a minor participant reduction so long as he or she were able to prove the existence of an upstream drug supplier. We reject this logic and conclude that Thompson did not meet his burden of proving his entitlement to this reduction. Participants in the distribution of drugs often have distinct and independently significant roles. Those distinguishing factors will not always be relevant in determining sentences. Id. While Thompson apparently had upstream drug suppliers in Los Angeles, the record reveals no evidence establishing that [Thompson] was any less culpable than those unidentified actors whose actual roles were unknown. United States v. Williams, 890 F.2d 102, 104 (8th Cir.1989). 15 Even if Thompson were able to prove that his suppliers were relatively more culpable, our decision would remain the same. A defendant who is concededly less culpable than his codefendants is not entitled to the minor participant reduction if that defendant was deeply involved in the criminal acts. United States v. West, 942 F.2d 528, 531 (8th Cir.1991). The record clearly supports the district court's finding that Thompson was not a minor participant, but, rather, a highly culpable offender who was deeply involved in the drug distribution scheme. Rooks stated that he and Thompson were partners in an ongoing drug distribution scheme in which Thompson repeatedly traveled to Los Angeles in order to obtain cocaine to convert into crack and distribute in St. Louis. The district court specifically relied on uncontroverted evidence that Thompson was seized on August 11, 1992, with approximately $16,000.00 to purchase cocaine for distribution in St. Louis, that Thompson assaulted TFD Thompson, and that Thompson admitted that he mailed a package containing approximately 476 grams of cocaine from Los Angeles to St. Louis on October 22, 1992. In sum, we find no clear error.