Court Opinion

ID: 9839304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 20:00:47.210215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:44.435186
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10786    Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 09/12/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10786
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       JONAS MIRAMONTES,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 0:19-cr-60374-RAR-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10786      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 09/12/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 22-10786

       Before NEWSOM, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Jonas Miramontes pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess
       methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it. He appeals the
       district court’s denial of a minor role adjustment to his offense level
       at sentencing. But because the district court did not clearly err in
       finding that Miramontes played more than a minor role in the meth
       conspiracy, we affirm the district court’s sentence.

           FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
              In December 2018, law enforcement became aware of a
       South Florida drug trafficking ring selling methamphetamine. An
       undercover agent arranged a drug purchase through a contact in
       the drug trafficking ring, who informed the undercover agent that
       two men would arrive separately to complete the transaction: one
       to deliver the drugs, and one to collect $120,000 as payment.
               At the arranged time, Miramontes and his co-conspirator,
       Carlos Alvarez, met up with the undercover agent to complete the
       deal. Miramontes retrieved a box from his car that contained
       roughly twenty-two pounds of meth. Once the undercover agent
       confirmed that Alvarez was supposed to receive the money and
       split some of it with Miramontes after the deal, law enforcement
       arrested both of them.
             In a post-arrest interview, Miramontes explained that he
       agreed to deliver drugs to help pay off a family member’s debt. He
USCA11 Case: 22-10786     Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 09/12/2023    Page: 3 of 6

       22-10786               Opinion of the Court                        3

       received the drugs in North Florida and drove them to Fort Lauder-
       dale, where he met Alvarez at a rented house and stashed the drugs
       in a closet for a few days before the deal with the undercover agent.
       Miramontes also admitted that this wasn’t his first meth deal. He
       completed similar transactions on multiple prior occasions.
              The co-conspirator, Alvarez, also made a post-arrest state-
       ment. He said that, before the deal with the undercover agent, he
       had been in contact with a Mexican national who arranged the deal,
       told him to rent a house, and told him to accompany Miramontes
       to the sale.
             The government charged Miramontes in a two-count indict-
       ment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute metham-
       phetamine, and possession with intent to distribute at least five
       hundred grams of meth. Miramontes pleaded guilty to the conspir-
       acy charge.
              At his sentencing, Miramontes sought to reduce his offense
       level by two levels because he played a minor role in the offense.
       He argued that his participation in the drug conspiracy was as a
       “pure” transporter who only did as he was told and was “way down
       the totem pole” in the drug organization. Miramontes also ex-
       plained that the cartel responsible for the drug trafficking conspir-
       acy had threatened to kill his brother if he didn’t cooperate with
       them.
             The district court declined to apply a minor role reduction.
       It found that the purity and amount of drugs involved—over
       twenty pounds of ninety-seven percent pure methamphetamine—
USCA11 Case: 22-10786      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 09/12/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-10786

       was evidence that Miramontes had some “responsibility being del-
       egated.” The district court also compared Miramontes with Alva-
       rez—who did receive a minor role reduction to his offense level—
       and concluded that the evidence showed Alvarez knew less about
       the drug conspiracy and had been instructed only on receiving pay-
       ment for Miramontes’s delivery. And, the district court reasoned,
       the distance Miramontes traveled to deliver the drugs also weighed
       against a minor role reduction.
              Without the minor role reduction, the sentencing guidelines
       range was 87 to 108 months’ imprisonment. But the district court
       varied downward and sentenced Miramontes to 75 months’ impris-
       onment. Miramontes appeals the district court’s minor role find-
       ing.

                           STANDARD OF REVIEW
              We review the denial of a minor role reduction for clear er-
       ror. United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th Cir.
       2016). “The district court’s ‘choice between two permissible views
       of the evidence’ as to the defendant’s role in the offense will rarely
       constitute clear error ‘so long as the basis of [its] decision is sup-
       ported by the record and does not involve a misapplication of a rule
       of law.’” Id. (alteration accepted) (quoting United States v. De Varon,
       175 F.3d 930, 945 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc)).

                                  DISCUSSION
              The sentencing guidelines provide for a two-level reduction
       in a defendant’s offense level where he “was a minor participant in
USCA11 Case: 22-10786      Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 09/12/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-10786               Opinion of the Court                         5

       any criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Whether a defendant
       is entitled to a minor role reduction depends on “two principles”:
       “first, the defendant’s role in the relevant conduct for which [he]
       has been held accountable at sentencing, and, second, [his] role as
       compared to that of other participants” in the relevant conduct.
       De Varon, 175 F.3d at 940. In considering the defendant’s role in the
       relevant conduct, the guidelines look to his: (1) understanding of
       “the scope and nature of the criminal activity”; (2) involvement in
       “planning or organizing the criminal activity”; (3) level of “deci-
       sion-making authority” in committing the offense; (4) “participa-
       tion” in the crime; and (5) expected benefit from the activity.
       U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C).
               Here, applying these factors to the sentencing record, the
       district court’s minor role finding was not clearly erroneous. First,
       the evidence showed that Miramontes knew he was transporting
       more than twenty pounds of pure meth over a long distance, and
       that he had a “vested interest” in the transaction because he
       planned to use the money to pay off his brother’s debt and protect
       him from a drug cartel. See De Varon, 175 F.3d at 942–43 (explaining
       that “the amount of drugs imported is a material consideration in
       assessing a defendant’s role”); United States v. Asseff, 917 F.2d 502,
       504, 507 (11th Cir. 1990) (defendant who agreed to move car con-
       taining drugs in exchange for $1000 was not a minor participant in
       light of his “apparent knowledge of [his] criminal activity and the
       great amount of cocaine involved”). And second, the evidence
       showed that Miramontes drove the meth half the length of Florida
       to Fort Lauderdale, hid the drugs, and then delivered the meth to
USCA11 Case: 22-10786       Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 09/12/2023      Page: 6 of 6

       6                        Opinion of the Court                   22-10786

       the undercover agent. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C)(iv) (con-
       sidering “the nature and extent of the defendant’s participation in
       the commission of the criminal activity” as part of the minor role
       determination).
             Miramontes argues that these facts didn’t “demonstrate” a
       greater relative role in the offense. But we think they do. Based
       on their post-arrest statements, Miramontes knew more about the
       scheme than his co-conspirator, Alvarez. And, as the district court
       found, the cartel had more “confidence” in Miramontes than Alva-
       rez because it trusted Miramontes to transport, hide, and deliver
       twenty pounds of its pure meth.
              Miramontes also argues that he was merely the “delivery
       boy” or “mule,” and thus his role in the offense was minor. But we
       have consistently rejected the argument that “a defendant’s status
       as a drug courier” necessarily means that he was a minor partici-
       pant. See De Varon, 175 F.3d at 942; accord United States v. Smith, 918
       F.2d 1551, 1566 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that “a drug courier is not
       necessarily a minor or minimal participant” under section 3B1.2);
       United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2002) (explain-
       ing that De Varon’s holding as to drug couriers is still binding under
       revised sentencing guidelines commentary). Based on the sentenc-
       ing record in this case, the district court did not clearly err in finding
       otherwise.
              AFFIRMED.