United States v. Aguilar Diaz, No. 16-50102 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit circuit vacated defendant's sentence after the district court denied defendant a minor role reduction under USSG 3B1.2(b). The panel rejected defendant's contention that the district court erred because it did not consider or mention the five factors listed in section 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), and failed to mention other factors it did consider when it concluded that defendant did not qualify for a minor-role adjustment. The panel explained that the district court was not obligated to tick off the factors on the record to show that it considered them, and the panel had no trouble determining from the sentencing memoranda and the transcript of the sentencing hearing that the district court was well aware of the factors added by Amendment 794. The panel held, however, that the decision to deny the adjustment rested on incorrect interpretations of section 3B1.2 and Amendment 794. In this case, there was no evidence that defendant had a proprietary interest in the outcome of the operation or otherwise stood to benefit more than minimally, and the government did not account for defendant's limited understanding of the overall scope and structure of the criminal operation.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated a sentence and remanded for re- sentencing in a case in which the district court denied the defendant, who pleaded guilty to importation of cocaine and heroin, a minor-role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Rejecting the defendant’s argument that the district court erred because it did not consider or mention the five factors listed in § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) and failed to mention other factors it did consider, the panel explained that the district court was not obligated to tick off the factors on the record. The panel had no trouble determining from the sentencing memoranda and the transcript of the sentencing hearing that the district court was well aware of the factors added by Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 794. The panel concluded that Amendment 794 did not change the size of the appropriate comparison group—it remains impermissible to compare a defendant’s conduct to that of the hypothetical average participant—but Amendment 794 makes clear that when a defendant knows little about the scope and structure of the criminal enterprise in which he was involved, that fact weighs in favor of granting a minor-role adjustment. The panel held that to the extent the district court’s reasoning reflects reliance on courier conduct as dispositive UNITED STATES V. AGUILAR DIAZ 3 of the defendant’s eligibility for a minor-role reduction, it was error. Recognizing that the district court has considerable latitude in ruling on minor-role adjustments, the panel concluded that on this record it must remand for re- sentencing because the district court adopted with little elaboration the government’s argument, which included an incorrect interpretation of § 3B1.2 and Amendment 794, where there was no evidence that the defendant had a proprietary interest in the outcome of the operation or otherwise stood to benefit more than minimally, and where the defendant had a limited understanding of the overall scope and structure of the criminal operation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.