Court Opinion

ID: 2963728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:20.122227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:45.162211
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 16, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                             

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1208 

                                    UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                NANCY VALDES-BRETONES,
                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                                Lynch, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________
                             and Watson,* Senior Judge. 
                                          ____________
                                 ____________________

            Benicio  Sanchez  Rivera,  Federal   Public  Defender,  and  Laura
            ________________________                                     _____
        Maldonado Rodriguez,  Assistant Federal Public Defender,  on brief for
        ___________________
        appellant.
            Guillermo  Gil,   United  States   Attorney,  Nelson   Perez-Sosa,
            ______________                                ___________________
        Assistant United States Attorney,  and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
                                               _______________________
        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                        
        ________________
        *Senior Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by 
         designation.

                      Per  Curiam.    Appellant   Nancy  Valdes-Bretones,
                      ___________

            having  pled guilty to  possession of cocaine  with intent to

            distribute, 21  U.S.C.   841(a)(1),1  challenges the district

            court's denial of a downward adjustment in her offense  level

            due to her alleged "minor  participant" status.  See U.S.S.G.
                                                             ___

              3B1.2.  We affirm.

                                          I.

                      We recount  only those  facts necessary to  a basic

            understanding  of the  issue  on appeal.2   Additional  facts

            will be incorporated as necessary.  

                      After a trip to Aruba, appellant returned to Puerto

            Rico  on  the morning  of July  5,  1994, aboard  an American

            Airlines  flight.    She  wore  an  American  Eagle  uniform.

            American  Airlines security  personnel observed  her approach

            from the  aircrew elevator area.  She  told them that she was

            leaving later that  day to go  to New York  and asked if  she

            could  leave a suitcase with them until then, when either she

            or  her cousin  would  pick it  up  prior to  boarding  their

            connecting flight.  

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Appellant  was charged  with  violating 21  U.S.C.    841
            (a)(1)  and 21  U.S.C.     952(a).    Pursuant  to  the  plea
            agreement, the latter charge was dropped.  

            2.  Since  this conviction  resulted from  a guilty  plea, we
            draw  the   facts  from  the  uncontested   portions  of  the
            presentence report ("PSR") and the transcript of the hearing.
            U.S. v. Dietz, 950 F.2d 50, 51 (1st Cir. 1991).  
            _____________

                                         -2-

                      The  security  personnel   X-rayed  the   suitcase,

            observed what they believed to be narcotics, and notified the

            U.S.  Customs service.  A  K-9 dog indicated  the presence of

            narcotics.   Search of  the  bag revealed  9.85 kilograms  of

            cocaine,3 later determined  to be 93% pure,  and $8,390.00 in

            U.S. currency. 

                      Later that afternoon, appellant boarded an airplane

            for Newark.  She  was detained on board  by a Customs  agent.

            She was questioned and  ultimately arrested.  At the  time of

            her arrest she  was not wearing  the American Eagle  uniform.

            She was  carrying  a cellular  phone  and $2,896.00  in  U.S.

            currency.   A subsequent  search of  her apartment  turned up

            $5,000.00 in U.S. currency, and an American Eagle uniform.4 

                      Based on  the quantity and type  of drugs involved,

            appellant was  given a base offense level  of 30.  U.S.S.G.  

            2D1.1.    This was  reduced by  three  levels because  of her

            guilty  plea and  her  timely acceptance  of  responsibility.

            U.S.S.G.    3E1.1.  With a  total offense level of  27, and a

            criminal history category of I, the  guidelines called for 70

            to 87 months of imprisonment, with a fine range of $12,500.00

                                
            ____________________

            3.  For  purposes of  sentencing, the  amount of  cocaine was
            stipulated at 4.92 kilograms.

            4.  Investigation revealed that while appellant had once been
            an American Airlines  employee, she  had not  worked for  the
            airline since May, 1993.  Prior to that time, she  had worked
            with the Wackenhut Security  Company at the American Airlines
            terminal and with the U.S. Immigration Service in New York.  

                                         -3-

            to $2,000,000.00 plus supervised  release.  The court imposed

            a  70   month  sentence   and  a  $50.00   "special  monetary

            assessment."                  II.

                      The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a decrease of

            two  levels  when  a  defendant is  a  minor  participant  in

            criminal activity.   Application Note  3 to U.S.S.G.    3B1.2

            explains that "a minor  participant means any participant who

            is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role

            could not be described as minimal."   

                      Role-in-the-offense  determinations  are  "innately

            fact specific."  U.S. v. Rostoff,  53 F.3d 398, 413 (1st Cir.
                             _______________

            1995).  "[O]ur standard of oversight is deferential:  `absent

            mistake of law, we review such determinations only for  clear

            error.'"  Id. (internal quotation  omitted).  We will reverse
                      ___

            the  district  court's  decision  not  to  grant  a  downward

            adjustment  "only if the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates

            that the defendant played a part that makes him substantially

            less  culpable than  the  average participant...."   U.S.  v.
                                                                 ________

            Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 460 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct.
            _______                               _____ ______

            80 (1994).

                      A criminal  defendant has the burden  of proving an

            entitlement to a downward adjustment.  U.S. v. Lopez-Gil, 965
                                                   _________________

            F.2d 1124  (1st Cir.),  cert. denied,  113 S. Ct.  483 (1992).
                                    _____ ______

            The question  whether a criminal  defendant is entitled  to a

            downward  adjustment  is  based  ultimately  on  the  court's

                                         -4-

            consideration of the facts of each particular case.  U.S.S.G.

              3B1.2, comment. (backg'd.).  

                      The  probation  officer  observed  in  his  report,

            adopted  by the district court,  that no role  in the offense

            adjustment   was   warranted   because   of   the   lack   of

            substantiating  evidence to  establish a  criminal hierarchy.

            In response  to appellant's  objection that there  were other

            people  involved  and  she played  only  a  minor  role as  a

            courier, the report noted that the facts of this case did not

            reflect  that appellant  was  a typical  courier with  little

            knowledge  and understanding of  the nature and  scope of the

            criminal activity.  A. 3-4.  The officer detailed his reasons

            for  this conclusion:  appellant,  who had not  for some time

            been an  American Eagle  employee, nonetheless  brought along

            her  uniform on a business  and pleasure trip  to Aruba; once

            the plane  returned to  Puerto Rico,  she separated from  the

            people  she  had  traveled  with  and  circumvented   several

            inspection points.  The officer considered as well the amount

            of drugs involved and the high degree of purity.  Id.  
                                                              ___

                      Appellant  reiterates  before this  court arguments

            rejected  by  the   district  court.5    They   are  no  more

                                
            ____________________

            5.  We  have  reviewed appellant's  claim  that the  district
            court may  not ever have seen certain documents purporting to
            show that there was at least one other person involved in the
            smuggling  scheme.    Assuming  that appellant  had  in  fact
            provided certain documents to the probation officer which the
            probation officer  neglected  to hand  to  the court  at  the
            hearing  - an assumption not wholly supported by the record -

                                         -5-

            persuasive here.  We  have specifically rejected the argument

            that status  as  a drug  courier,  without more,  entitles  a

            defendant to a reduction of the offense level as a minimal or

            minor  participant.  Lopez-Gil, 965 F.2d at 1131; U.S. v. Paz
                                 _________                    ___________

            Uribe, 891 F.2d 396,  399 (1st Cir. 1989), cert.  denied, 495
            _____                                      _____  ______

            U.S. 951 (1990).   See U.S. v. Garcia, 920  F.2d 153, 155 (2d
                               ___ ______________

            Cir.  1990)  ("[w]hile in  certain  cases  and on  particular

            facts,  a  district court  might  conclude  that a  defendant

            courier was  `substantially  less culpable  than the  average

            participant' and thus make  a downward adjustment pursuant to

              3B1.2,  this  conclusion  is  by  no  means  mandated.  ...

            Couriers are  indispensable to the smuggling  and delivery of

            drugs and their proceeds.").

                      Balanced against  appellant's  claim that  she  was

            only  a minor  part  of a  larger  enterprise is  the  record

            evidence as found  or adopted6  by the district  court:   the

                                
            ____________________

            we are not  convinced that  appellant has been  harmed.   The
            court permitted  testimony at  the sentencing hearing  to the
            effect  that defendant  had consistently  claimed there  were
            others involved.   A. 38-39.   The government  indicated that
            defendant, when arrested, alleged that a  person in Aruba had
            provided her with  the drugs.  A. 41.   Whether in fact there
            were others involved,  the court did not find  that appellant
            was substantially less culpable than they.  Given the details
            of  the scheme, the weight and  purity of the cocaine and the
            amount of  money  involved, the  court had  ample grounds  on
            which to deny appellant a downward adjustment.    

            6.  Appellant claims  that the district court  failed to make
            findings  in  support of  its rejection  of  her role  in the
            offense   adjustment.  We have already observed that the PSR,
            adopted by the district court, sets out sufficient reasons in
            support  of the denial of the role in the offense adjustment.

                                         -6-

            considerable amount of  cocaine involved; the cocaine's  high

            degree of purity,  see U.S.S.G.   2D1.1, comment.  (n.9); the
                               ___

            planning  involved in  the  smuggling scheme;  and the  large

            amount of cash  found with the  drugs, on appellant's  person

            and in her home.  

                      We have  not been  shown that the  district court's

            failure  to grant appellant a  downward adjustment was in any

            way  erroneous.    On  this record,  oral  argument  will not

            advance appellant's case.  Accordingly, the  district court's

            decision is affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.  
                        ________

                                
            ____________________

            We find appellant's argument untenable in light of our recent
            decision  in U.S.  v. Catano,  ___F.3d___, ___,  No. 94-1502,
                         _______________
            slip op. at 26 (1st Cir. Sept. 18, 1995)("in a case where the
            PSR  findings themselves  adequately set  forth a  meaningful
            rationale  for the sentence, a district judge does not err in
            adopting such findings.").        

                                         -7-