Opinion ID: 57332
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mitigating Role Reduction

Text: Carvajal argues that the district court erred by denying him a four-level mitigating-role reduction.3 If the defendant was a minor participant in the criminal activity, the district court decreases the offense level by two levels. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). A minor participant is one “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.5. If the defendant was a minimal participant in the criminal activity, the district court decreases the 3 We ordinarily review a district court’s determination of a defendant’s role in the offense for clear error. United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). However, because Carvajal did not seek a four-level minimal-role reduction, but rather a two-level minor-role reduction, in the district court, we review Carvajal’s claim on appeal for plain error. See United States v. Duncan, 381 F.3d 1070, 1073 (11th Cir. 2004). 5 offense level by four levels. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a). A minimal participant is one who “plays a minimal role in concerted activity”; this phrase “is intended to cover defendants who are plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.4. The defendant has the burden to establish his role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 939 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). In determining whether a mitigating-role reduction applies, the district court considers two principles: (1) the defendant’s role in the offense compared to the relevant conduct attributed to him in calculating his base offense level; and (2) the defendant’s role compared to that of other participants in the offense. Id. at 94045. “[I]n the drug courier context . . . the amount of drugs imported is a material consideration in assessing a defendant’s role in [his] relevant conduct . . . . [and] may be dispositive – in and of itself – in the extreme case.” Id. at 943. Additionally, “when a drug courier’s relevant conduct is limited to [his] own act of importation, a district court may legitimately conclude that the courier played an important or essential role in the importation of those drugs.” Id. at 942-43. We cannot say that the district court’s failure to give Carvajal a four-level minimal-role reduction was plain error. In calculating Carvajal’s offense level, the district court held Carvajal accountable only for the amount of cocaine found on 6 the vessel. Thus, Carvajal’s actual conduct and his relevant conduct are identical. Furthermore, the 5,000 kilograms of cocaine found on the vessel is a substantial quantity. Moreover, Carvajal was not, as he maintains, the least culpable of the identifiable participants in the drug importation scheme. Carvajal was one of four deck hands on the vessel. While a deck hand may be less culpable than the captain of the vessel under whose command he works, this does not mean that Carvajal was a minimal participant. See id., 175 F.3d at 944 (stating that some conspiracies may not have minor participants). Carvajal’s emphasis on other unidentified participants in the larger drug importation scheme is unavailing given that he was held accountable only for his involvement in the cocaine shipment found on the vessel. See id. (explaining that the district court should compare the defendant’s role only to the other identifiable participants in the relevant conduct and that “[t]he conduct of participants in any larger criminal conspiracy is irrelevant”).