Opinion ID: 703475
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 13 This court reviews a district court's decision as to whether to reduce a defendant's sentence under Sec. 3B1.2 under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Soto, 48 F.3d 1415, 1420 (7th Cir.1995). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that he is eligible for such a reduction by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 1423. However, a district court's interpretation of the guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Linnear, 40 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir.1994); United States v. DeCicco, 899 F.2d 1531, 1535 (7th Cir.1990). 14 Section 3B1.2 (1992) provides, in its entirety: Sec. 3B1.2. Mitigating Role 15 Based on the defendant's role in the offense, decrease the offense level as follows: 16 (a) If the defendant was a minimal participant in any criminal activity, decrease by 4 levels. 17 (b) If the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal activity, decrease by 2 levels. 18 In cases falling between (a) and (b), decrease by 3 levels. 19 This section provides adjustments for a defendant who plays a part in the offense that makes him substantially less culpable than the average participant. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.2, comment. (backg'd.); Soto, 48 F.3d at 1423. The determination of a defendant's role in the offense is based on all conduct within the scope of Sec. 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct), and not just on the elements and acts cited in the count of conviction. U.S.S.G. Ch. 3, Pt. B, intro. comment.
20 Cintron maintains that the district court erred in interpreting the guidelines when it concluded that Sec. 3B1.2 does not apply when a defendant is the only known participant in a crime. 21 While this circuit has not specifically addressed the issue, other circuits have held Sec. 3B1.2 can apply to a defendant who is the only participant in the offense. See United States v. Caballero, 936 F.2d 1292, 1298-99 (D.C.Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 943 (1992) (courier convicted of possession with intent to distribute); United States v. Webster, 996 F.2d 209, 212 (9th Cir.1993) (same); United States v. Demers, 13 F.3d 1381, 1385 (9th Cir.1994) (same). To merit the adjustment, the evidence at sentencing must show: 1) that the relevant conduct for which the defendant would otherwise be held accountable (within the meaning of Sec. 1B1.3) involved more than one participant; and 2) that the defendant's culpability was relatively minor compared to the other participants. Caballero, 936 F.2d at 1299; Webster, 996 F.2d at 212. See also United States v. Bierley, 922 F.2d 1061, 1065 (3d Cir.1990) (that there is only one defendant does not mean there were not other participants who simply have not been apprehended or were not charged). 22 Cintron maintains that the district court made an error of law in holding Sec. 3B1.2 did not apply to him. 4 Although the district court's statements are somewhat ambiguous, the court stopped short of stating Sec. 3B1.2 could never apply to solo defendants. The district court indicated the adjustment usually applied where there were multiple defendants or parties involved. (Sentencing Transcript at 5). This is an accurate statement. The district court did emphasize, however, that Cintron's fact situation did not warrant a two-level reduction, as Cintron was the only known participant in the offense of conviction to date. (Sentencing Transcript at 4-5.) The to date reference in particular indicates the district court's decision was based upon Cintron's inadequate showing regarding his alleged minor role in the offense. This where Cintron's claim founders. 23 The burden is on Cintron to show he is entitled to a downward adjustment under Sec. 3B1.2. See Soto, 48 F.3d at 1423. No other relevant conduct beyond the acts encompassed in the conviction was presented at sentencing. While the district court acknowledged that more than one person was involved, this was apparently based on the stipulation that someone paid Cintron to transport the drugs. Other than that stipulation, no evidence was presented of any larger organization or broader illegal activities. Contrast United States v. Willis, 49 F.3d 1271 (7th Cir.1995) (street dealer in the context of extensive narcotics conspiracy). See also United States v. Sanchez, 984 F.2d 769, 775 (7th Cir.1993) (courier can be minor participant in larger conspiracy). Because Cintron presented no evidence in support of his claim to the district court, he clearly failed to meet his burden. 5 24 Further, Cintron was not held accountable for anything beyond his own conduct. The issue is not whether the defendant committed a minor offense, or caused only a minor social injury; the question is whether the defendant's role in the crime of conviction was minor. Willis, 49 F.3d at 1275. Cintron was entirely responsible for the crime for which he was charged, possession with intent to distribute; as such he is not entitled to an adjustment for his role in the offense. See Sanchez, 984 F.2d at 775 (defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm and was the primary participant in both offenses). 6 Cf. DeCicco, 899 F.2d at 1535-36 (more than one criminally liable participant needed to apply Section 3B1.1).
25 Cintron also contends he is entitled to resentencing because the record does not indicate the district court considered a downward adjustment for both minor and minimal participation. As the district court clearly considered 7 an adjustment for minor participation, the question becomes whether resentencing is required because the district court did not consider an adjustment for minimal participation. Cintron relies upon United States v. Scroggins, 939 F.2d 416 (7th Cir.1991). 26 In Scroggins, the defendant moved for an adjustment as a minimal participant, which the district court properly denied. 939 F.2d at 424. This court concluded, however, that remand was necessary because it was unclear whether the district court considered whether the defendant was a minor participant, especially in light of the prosecutor's acknowledgment that the defendant was less culpable than others involved in the criminal activity. Id. See also United States v. Gutierrez, 978 F.2d 1463, 1471 (7th Cir.1992) (remand required where defendant requested an adjustment for both minor and minimal participation and district court only explicitly addressed issue of minimal participation). 27 Cintron's contention fails. First, Cintron did not move for an adjustment as a minimal participant in the district court; thus we will review only for plain error. See generally Soto, 48 F.3d at 1421. Second, Cintron's situation is distinguishable from that of the defendants in Scroggins and Gutierrez. Those defendants sought four-level adjustments as minimal participants. Even if their motions were denied, that would not rule out their eligibility for two-level reductions as minor participants, given the more limited showing required. In contrast, Cintron moved for a two-level reduction as a minor participant. As Judge Gilbert believed Cintron's showing was inadequate to establish minor participation, it goes without saying Cintron's showing was inadequate to establish minimal participation. The substantial quantity of narcotics, and the fact couriers are not automatically entitled to a reduction for their role in drug offenses, indicate Cintron was not a minimal participant. See generally Osborne, 931 F.2d at 1159 (courier who transported 11 ounces of cocaine not entitled to adjustment under Sec. 3B1.2); Precin v. United States, 23 F.3d 1215, 1219 (7th Cir.1994) (request for reduction under Sec. 3B1.2 likely futile for courier who was responsible for distributing 500-2000 grams of cocaine).