Case: 16-15405 Date Filed: 07/24/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15405
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cr-60047-BB-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ISRAEL TORRES ARELLANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 24, 2017)
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-15405 Date Filed: 07/24/2017 Page: 2 of 4
Israel Torres Arellano appeals his 75-month sentence, imposed below the
guideline range, after he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal, Torres
Arellano argues that the district court should have applied a two-point minor role
reduction when calculating his sentence because he played a limited role in the
conspiracy and was less culpable than another conspirator who received a minor
role reduction.
We review the district court’s determination of whether or not a defendant
qualifies for a minor role reduction for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez De
Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937-938 (11th Cir. 1999). The district court has
“considerable discretion in making this fact-intensive determination.” United
States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2002). Section 3B1.2(b) of the
Sentencing Guidelines states that if a defendant was a minor participant in the
crime, his offense level should be decreased by two points. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b).
A minor participant is a defendant who is less culpable than most other
participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal. Id. § 3B1.2,
comment. (n.5). The defendant bears the burden of proving a mitigating role by a
preponderance of the evidence, and we have recognized that the role determination
is “uniquely fact-intensive.” Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d at 939-40.
2
Case: 16-15405 Date Filed: 07/24/2017 Page: 3 of 4
In determining a defendant’s role in the offense, a district court must
consider first the defendant’s role in the relevant conduct that he is being held
accountable for at sentencing and second the defendant’s role compared to other
participants in the relevant conduct. Id. at 940-941, 944. To be entitled to a
reduction, a defendant must prove that he was less culpable than most other
participants that engaged in the same relevant conduct. Id. at 944. A district court
“is not required to make any specific findings other than the ultimate determination
of the role in the offense.” Id. at 940. A district court’s decision will rarely
constitute clear error so long as it is supported by the record and is not a
misapplication of the law. Id. at 945.
The district court did not err in deciding not to apply the two-point minor
role reduction when calculating Torres Arellano’s sentence. The district court
found that Torres Arellano played an important part in the conspiracy and was not
less culpable than the other members of the conspiracy, and therefore concluded
that he did not merit a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). See
Rodriguez de Varon, 175 F.3d at 940-41, 944. Specifically, the court found that
Torres Arellano was the main point of contact for the conspiracy who arranged
transactions with the confidential source, received the money, and recruited his
friend Pinzon Urtecho to accompany him. Because the conclusion was supported
3
Case: 16-15405 Date Filed: 07/24/2017 Page: 4 of 4
by the record and was not a misapplication of law, it was not clear error. Id. at
945. Accordingly, we affirm Torres Arellano’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
4