Court Opinion

ID: 9816476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 03:10:45.355625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:54.061597
License: Public Domain

BECKER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The majority’s opinion is persuasive that the record would support a finding that Santo is not entitled to an adjustment for minor role. But the District Court’s ratio decidendi is encapsulated in its pronouncement that: “I just don’t think that fits this defendant, who was a street seller.” In my view, the District Court has made a legal determination that a street seller will never be entitled to a minor role adjustment, which contravenes our opinion in United States v. Rodriguez, 342 F.3d 296 (3d Cir.2003), where we held that the District Court should not make legal determinations that certain categories of criminals (there the least-knowledgeable mule, here the street seller) are not entitled, as a matter of law, to a downward adjustment for minor role. I would vacate and remand for further consideration in light of Rodriguez, which had not yet been decided at the time of Santo’s sentencing.