Court Opinion

ID: 9379740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 15:00:37.740518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:27.286042
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10778    Document: 36-1     Date Filed: 03/16/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10778
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       CARLOS ALBERTO QUINCHIA-CARMONA,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20305-BB-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10778     Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 03/16/2023    Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-10778

       Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Carlos Quinchia-Carmona appeals his sentence of 65
       months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to import 5 or more kilo-
       grams of cocaine into the United States. He argues on appeal that
       the district court clearly erred when it declined to give him a mini-
       mal-role reduction and instead gave him a minor-role reduction
       under § 3B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We dis-
       agree, and we therefore affirm.
                                        I.
              Quinchia-Carmona pleaded guilty to one count of conspir-
       acy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine into the United
       States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. The factual proffer for the
       plea stated that Quinchia-Carmona helped repair a dock and pre-
       pare a waterfront home and a second “stash house” in Puerto Rico
       for the arrival of a boat containing 580 kilograms of cocaine from
       South America. The factual proffer further stated that when the
       boat arrived at the waterfront home in Puerto Rico, Quinchia-Car-
       mona helped load the cocaine into duffle bags and move it first into
       the waterfront home and then into the stash house. It also stated
       that Quinchia-Carmona was paid $70,000 for his help in offloading
       the cocaine. Quinchia-Carmona signed the factual proffer and ad-
       mitted during his plea colloquy that the facts in the proffer were
       true.
USCA11 Case: 22-10778     Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 03/16/2023    Page: 3 of 6

       22-10778               Opinion of the Court                        3

              At sentencing, Quinchia-Carmona argued that a four-level
       “minimal-role” reduction should be applied to his Sentencing
       Guidelines offense level because his involvement in the offense was
       limited to picking up duffel bags from a boat, carrying them to a
       house, then transporting them to another house nearby. He ar-
       gued that he played a minimal role in the conspiracy in comparison
       to the mastermind of the scheme, and that he was the least im-
       portant member of the conspiracy because anyone could have per-
       formed the tasks that he did, and other people involved had much
       more specialized roles in the conspiracy.
              The district court agreed that Quinchia-Carmona was less
       culpable than most of the other participants in the conspiracy, but
       it determined that he was entitled to only a two-level “minor-role”
       reduction, not a four-level “minimal-role” reduction. Applying
       that reduction, the court calculated an adjusted offense level of 27.
       With Quinchia-Carmona’s criminal-history category (I), the ad-
       justed offense level resulted in a Guidelines range of 70–87 months
       in prison. The district court imposed a below-guideline sentence
       of 65 months in prison followed by 5 years of supervised release.
       Quinchia-Carmona now appeals.
                                        II.
               We review a district court’s denial of a role reduction for
       clear error. United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th
       Cir. 2016). District courts have “considerable discretion in making
       this fact-intensive determination.” United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d
       1274, 1277–78 (11th Cir. 2002). As long as the “court’s decision is
USCA11 Case: 22-10778      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 03/16/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-10778

       supported by the record and does not involve a misapplication of a
       rule of law,” the “choice between two permissible views of the ev-
       idence as to the defendant’s role in the offense will rarely constitute
       clear error.” Cruickshank, 837 F.3d at 1192 (quotation omitted).
       The defendant has the burden of proving his mitigating role in the
       offense by a preponderance of the evidence when he requests a
       downward adjustment. United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930,
       939 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc).
               The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two- to four-level
       mitigating-role reduction for defendants whose role in an offense
       makes them “substantially less culpable than the average partici-
       pant in the criminal activity.” U.S.S.G § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(A). The
       four-level reduction is reserved for defendants who played “a min-
       imal role in the criminal activity,” and were “plainly among the
       least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group.” Id.,
       cmt. n.4. A “defendant’s lack of knowledge or understanding of
       the scope and structure of the enterprise and of the activities of oth-
       ers is indicative of a role as minimal participant.” Id. For purposes
       of the two-level reduction, a minor participant is one “who is less
       culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be
       described as minimal.” Id., cmt. n.5.
              The determination of whether to apply a mitigating-role ad-
       justment “is heavily dependent upon the facts of the particular
       case.” Id., cmt. n.3(C). “Two principles guide a district court’s con-
       sideration: (1) the court must compare the defendant’s role in the
       offense with the relevant conduct attributed to him in calculating
USCA11 Case: 22-10778      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 03/16/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-10778                Opinion of the Court                         5

       his base offense level; and (2) the court may compare the defend-
       ant’s conduct to that of other participants involved in the offense.”
       United States v. Alvarez-Coria, 447 F.3d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir. 2006).
              As to the first principle, the foremost consideration is the de-
       fendant’s role as measured “against the relevant conduct for which
       she has been held accountable.” De Varon, 175 F.3d at 940. Thus,
       “where the relevant conduct attributed to a defendant is identical
       to her actual conduct,” she cannot establish that she is entitled to a
       mitigating-role adjustment “simply by pointing to some broader
       criminal scheme in which she was a minor participant but for
       which she was not held accountable at sentencing.” Id. at 941. In
       many cases, measuring the defendant’s role against the relevant
       conduct for which he was held accountable at sentencing will be
       dispositive in the mitigating-role analysis. United States v. Ber-
       nal-Benitez, 594 F.3d 1303, 1321 n.25 (11th Cir. 2010)
               As to the second principle, the district court may also meas-
       ure the defendant’s role against the other discernable participants
       in the relevant conduct. De Varon, 175 F.3d at 944–45. Only those
       participants who were involved in the relevant conduct attributed
       to the defendant should be considered in this comparison. Id. at
       944. And even “if a defendant played a lesser role than the other
       participants, that fact does not entitle her to a role reduction since
       it is possible that none are minor or minimal participants.” United
       States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581, 591 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation omit-
       ted).
USCA11 Case: 22-10778     Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 03/16/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court               22-10778

              The district court did not clearly err in finding that
       Quinchia-Carmona was entitled to a minor-role reduction rather
       than a minimal-role reduction. The record supports the district
       court’s determination that Quinchia-Carmona was less culpable
       than others involved in the conspiracy to import cocaine into
       Puerto Rico, in that he did not plan the offense and did not appear
       to have decision-making authority. See U.S.S.G § 3B1.2, cmt.
       n.3(C). But he appeared to have some knowledge of the scope and
       structure of the drug-importation scheme, given his cooperation
       with other participants in offloading the cocaine from the boat. See
       id. And his role in that scheme was not minimal; he was personally
       involved in preparing the delivery site and the stash house and un-
       loading and transporting 580 kilograms of cocaine in Puerto Rico.
       Cf. De Varon, 175 F.3d at 943 (where the defendant participates as
       a drug courier, “the amount of drugs imported is a material consid-
       eration in assessing a defendant’s role in her relevant conduct”).
       Additionally, Quinchia-Carmona received a substantial payment of
       $70,000 for aiding the conspiracy.
                                       III.
            For the reasons discussed above, we affirm Quinchia-Car-
       mona’s conviction and sentence.
             AFFIRMED.