Court Opinion

ID: 9899686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 16:01:21.112741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:46.390639
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3493
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                            Luis Alberto Castro-Santos

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                      for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
                                 ____________

                          Submitted: September 18, 2023
                            Filed: November 17, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Luis Alberto Castro-Santos pleaded guilty to conspiracy to unlawfully
produce, transfer, and possess with intent to use or transfer 5 or more documents or
authentication features, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(1)–(3) and 1028(f). The
district court 1 sentenced him to a 24-month term of imprisonment and 3 years of
supervised release. Castro-Santos appeals the denial of a downward adjustment
pursuant to § 3B1.2(b) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) based on
his minor role in the conspiracy.

                                         I.

      Between Spring 2020 and April 2021, Castro-Santos mailed fraudulent
documents from a post office in California to addresses in Fremont and Wakefield,
Nebraska. He mailed dozens of packages that contained social security cards, state
and foreign identification cards, and permanent resident cards on a weekly basis.
Castro-Santos’s role in the conspiracy was limited to mailing packages, which he
knew contained fraudulent documents. In exchange, he was paid $50 for each
mailing. Three Nebraska-based co-defendants then sold the documents they obtained
from Castro-Santos.

       Castro-Santos argued that a minor-role reduction was appropriate because his
role in the conspiracy was limited to mailing packages of documents. He maintained
that he was not involved in creating the fraudulent documents, arranging their sale,
negotiating their price, or communicating with co-defendants. Moreover, he did not
even know how many documents were in each package. Following review of the
parties’ briefing and oral arguments, the district court determined that Castro-Santos
had not proven a mitigating role and denied his request for a downward adjustment.

                                         II.

       Section 3B1.2 allows for a 2-level reduction in a defendant’s base offense
level if they were “a minor participant” and “less culpable than most other
participants in the criminal activity.” USSG § 3B1.2(b) (2021); id. comment. (n.5).

      1
       The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska.
                                     -2-
When considering whether a minor-role reduction is appropriate, “the district court
should consider the defendant’s knowledge, planning, authority, responsibility, and
benefit from the illegal scheme.” United States v. Jones, 25 F.4th 1077, 1079 (8th
Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Kearby, 943 F.3d 969, 977–78 (5th Cir. 2019);
citing USSG § 3B1.2 comment. (n.3(C)); United States v. Waddell, 831 F.3d 958,
960 (8th Cir. 2016)) (cleaned up). “[O]ur cases make it clear that merely showing
the defendant was less culpable than other participants is not enough to entitle the
defendant to the adjustment if the defendant was ‘deeply involved’ in the offense.”
United States v. Bush, 352 F.3d 1177, 1182 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v.
West, 942 F.2d 528, 531 (8th Cir. 1991); United States v. Thompson, 60 F.3d 514,
517 (8th Cir. 1995)).

      It is the defendant’s burden to prove he had a mitigating role in the offense.
United States v. Young, 689 F.3d 941, 946 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v.
Mitchell, 613 F.3d 862, 870 (8th Cir. 2010)). “We review the district court’s refusal
to grant a minor role adjustment for clear error.” United States v. Garcia, 946 F.3d
413, 418 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Price, 542 F.3d 617, 622 (8th Cir.
2008)).

      Castro-Santos argues that he was entitled to a reduction under USSG
§ 3B1.2(b) because he played only a minor role, as an “unwitting courier,” in the
conspiracy. He maintains that he had no proprietary interest in the conspiracy and
that he was “less culpable than the average co-conspirator,” as shown by the
government’s lack of evidence that he was involved beyond the mailing of packages.

        The district court’s decision to deny a minor-role reduction was not clearly
erroneous. The record reflects that for approximately one year, Castro-Santos
knowingly mailed dozens of packages of fraudulent documents to Nebraska, where
co-defendants then sold them. Even if he had less authority or responsibility over the
conspiracy than his co-defendants, he benefited throughout, receiving $50 for each
trip to the post office. Moreover, all fraudulent documents involved in the conspiracy
had to be mailed by him before they could be sold. Castro-Santos’s role may have
                                         -3-
been limited to that of a type of courier. But mailing the contraband served an
important function in the conspiracy, and Castro-Santos was a steady participant
from the start of that conspiracy to its end. See United States v. Pruneda, 518 F.3d
597, 606 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that when transportation of contraband is a key
component of a conspiracy, a defendant’s “self-acknowledged role as a . . .
courier . . . does not entitle [them] to a minor participant role reduction” (citing
United States v. Martinez, 168 F.3d 1043, 1048 (8th Cir. 1999))).

      We affirm.
                       ______________________________

                                        -4-