USCA11 Case: 21-13788 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2023 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13788
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JORGE ALBERTO QUIJADA-MORENO,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cr-00026-PGB-GJK-5
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13788 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2023 Page: 2 of 10
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13788
Before WILSON, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Alberto Quijada-Moreno appeals his 108-month prison
sentence. Quijada-Moreno argues that the district court erred in
finding that he played more than a minor role in the drug conspir-
acy. We affirm.
I.
Quijada-Moreno pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess
with the intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, in
violation of
21 U.S.C. section 846. His base offense level was thirty-
four, but it was reduced by three levels for acceptance of responsi-
bility and two levels because he was eligible for safety valve relief.
Based on his offense level of twenty-nine, Quijada-Moreno’s advi-
sory guideline range was eighty-seven to 108 months’ imprison-
ment. And because Quijada-Moreno was eligible for safety valve
relief, the probation office recommended that the district court dis-
regard the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence.
Before sentencing, Quijada-Moreno objected that his of-
fense level should be reduced under guideline section 3B1.2 be-
cause he played a minor role in the drug conspiracy. He argued
that he “was not involved in any other manner other than trans-
porting the drugs and money” for the main coconspirator and “did
as he was directed.” He maintained that “he was merely a courier
transporting drugs” and “was not fully aware of the scope and
USCA11 Case: 21-13788 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2023 Page: 3 of 10
21-13788 Opinion of the Court 3
structure” of the conspiracy. And he argued that he “did not par-
ticipate in planning or organizing any of the deliveries,” “had no
decision-making authority or . . . influence over decision making,”
“had no discretion,” and “was paid very little in comparison to the
value of the drugs.” According to Quijada-Moreno, he was “less
culpable than the average participant” and “should not be held re-
sponsible to the same degree as the head” of the conspiracy “or the
other individuals involved in the conspiracy” who “not only acted
as couriers but also purchased drugs . . . to then sell” to customers.
The government disagreed with Quijada-Moreno’s charac-
terization of his role in the conspiracy, arguing that he was “an av-
erage participant” and was “not entitled to a minor role adjustment
of any kind.” The government argued that he was “being held ac-
countable only for the amount of heroin that he was personally in-
volved with, and not the entire amount that the conspiracy as a
whole was involved with.” And the government contended that
Quijada-Moreno “actively participated and provided heroin” to co-
conspirators “for eventual distribution, as well as actively trans-
porting heroin himself” from Chicago to Florida.
At sentencing, an agent with the Drug Enforcement Admin-
istration testified that the “main target of the investigation” was
“bringing kilogram quantities of heroin” from Chicago and “dis-
tributing it here in Florida.” The investigation revealed that Qui-
jada-Moreno was a courier for the main coconspirator and traveled
“from Chicago to Florida to pick up money here and bring it back
to Chicago and also bring heroin down from Chicago” to Florida.
USCA11 Case: 21-13788 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2023 Page: 4 of 10
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13788
The agent testified that Quijada-Moreno met with the main cocon-
spirator and other coconspirators in Chicago and, “on three or four
occasions,” provided heroin to other coconspirators so they could
transport it from Chicago to Florida.
The agent testified that Quijada-Moreno was “right under”
the main coconspirator in the conspiracy’s hierarchy. The agent
explained, “He was trusted enough that he was meeting with” the
main coconspirator’s “source of supply in Chicago to pick up the
heroin,” he “was trusted with bringing heroin down” to Florida, he
“was trusted with bringing heroin to other couriers that were
bringing it down” to Florida, and he was “trusted with the money
from the sale of that heroin.” The agent also testified that three
coconspirators bought heroin from the main coconspirator to sell
to their own respective customers.
The district court overruled Quijada-Moreno’s minor role
objection. The district court considered the “traditional factors,”
including Quijada-Moreno’s “awareness of the scope” of the con-
spiracy “relative to his relevant conduct” and his “participation in
planning or organizing, decision making authority, or influence.”
The district court determined that Quijada-Moreno’s “relevant
conduct” was eleven kilograms of heroin in “the transactions at is-
sue” and emphasized that this was “not a one-time transaction.”
The district court explained that “status as a drug courier, in and of
itself,” was “not dispositive” of whether Quijada-Moreno was “en-
titled to receiving a downward adjustment” for his role “in the of-
fense.”
USCA11 Case: 21-13788 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2023 Page: 5 of 10
21-13788 Opinion of the Court 5
The district court found that Quijada-Moreno was “a trusted
member” of the conspiracy with “the ability to go to the source of
supply to pick up kilograms of heroin, which ha[d] quite a value.”
The district court also found that Quijada-Moreno “had the author-
ity to hold on to those kilograms and deliver them” to coconspira-
tors “when they came up to Chicago to pick them up from him
three or four times.” And he had “the ability to plan,” “drop off
heroin” in Florida, “and bring back money” to Chicago.
The district court didn’t “see a tremendous distinction” be-
tween Quijada-Moreno’s role and the involvement of other cocon-
spirators. The district court found that they all “play[ed] the same
integral role to advance the goals” of the conspiracy. “Somebody
ha[d] to get the drugs from wherever they originate[d] into Chi-
cago. Those people ha[d] to store [them], make sure [they] g[ot]
to the intermediaries who br[ought] [them] to [Florida], and he
played that role.” Because Quijada-Moreno was “an average par-
ticipant in the conspiracy,” the district court found that he was not
entitled to a minor role adjustment under section 3B1.2.
II.
We review the district court’s finding that Quijada-Moreno
did not play a minor role in the conspiracy for clear error. United
States v. Rodriguez De Varon,
175 F.3d 930, 937–38 (11th Cir.
1999). The district court’s “ultimate determination” of Quijada-
Moreno’s “role in the offense” was “a fundamentally factual deter-
mination entitled to due deference,” see
id., and “we will not dis-
turb [the] district court’s finding[] unless we are left with a definite
USCA11 Case: 21-13788 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2023 Page: 6 of 10
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13788
and firm conviction that a mistake ha[d] been committed,” United
States v. Monzo,
852 F.3d 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2017) (citation omit-
ted).
III.
Under section 3B1.2, a defendant may receive a downward
adjustment to his offense level if he shows that he was “substan-
tially less culpable than the average participant in the criminal ac-
tivity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(A). “Minimal participants may
receive a four-level reduction, minor participants may receive a
two-level reduction, and those whose participation falls in between
may receive a three-level reduction.” Rodriguez De Varon,
175
F.3d at 939 (citing § 3B1.2). A minor participant is a defendant
“who is less culpable than most other participants in the criminal
activity, but whose role could not be described as minimal.”
§ 3B1.2, cmt. n.5.
The defendant has the burden of proving his role in the of-
fense by a preponderance of the evidence. Rodriguez De Varon,
175 F.3d at 939. “It,” then, “falls to the district court” to determine
if he satisfied the burden.
Id. “In making the ultimate determina-
tion of the defendant’s role in the offense,” the district court “has
no duty to make any specific subsidiary factual findings.”
Id. “So
long as the district court’s decision is supported by the record and
the court clearly resolves any disputed factual issues, a simple state-
ment of the district court’s conclusion is sufficient.”
Id. Though
we’ve “urge[d] district courts to clarify their ultimate factual find-
ings by more specific findings when possible,” we’ve said “that a
USCA11 Case: 21-13788 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2023 Page: 7 of 10
21-13788 Opinion of the Court 7
district court is not required to make any specific findings other
than the ultimate determination of the defendant’s role in the of-
fense.”
Id. at 940 (alteration adopted).
To determine the defendant’s role in the offense, the district
court “should be informed by two principles discerned from the
[g]uidelines.”
Id. First, “the defendant’s role in the relevant con-
duct for which []he has been held accountable at sentencing.”
Id.
And second, his “role as compared to that of other participants in
h[is] relevant conduct.”
Id. The district court “must consider the
totality of the circumstances and the facts of the particular case.”
United States v. Cabezas-Montano,
949 F.3d 567, 606 (11th Cir.
2020).
The guidelines also provide a “non-exhaustive list of factors”
that the district court “should consider” in making the determina-
tion:
(i) the degree to which the defendant understood the
scope and structure of the criminal activity;
(ii) the degree to which the defendant participated in
planning or organizing the criminal activity;
(iii) the degree to which the defendant exercised deci-
sion-making authority or influenced the exercise of
decision-making authority;
(iv) the nature and extent of the defendant’s participa-
tion in the commission of the criminal activity, in-
cluding the acts the defendant performed and the
USCA11 Case: 21-13788 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2023 Page: 8 of 10
8 Opinion of the Court 21-13788
responsibility and discretion the defendant had in per-
forming those acts; [and]
(v) the degree to which the defendant stood to benefit
from the criminal activity.
§ 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C).
Here, the district court didn’t clearly err in finding that Qui-
jada-Moreno was “an average participant in the conspiracy” and
therefore not entitled to a downward adjustment under section
3B1.2. As required, the district court first considered Quijada-
Moreno’s “relevant conduct”—the transaction involving eleven
kilograms of heroin for which Quijada-Moreno pleaded guilty and
was “held accountable at sentencing.” See Rodriguez De Varon,
175 F.3d at 939. The district court then compared Quijada-
Moreno’s role “to that of other participants,” determining that Qui-
jada-Moreno’s participation was “average”—not minor—as com-
pared to other coconspirators under the “totality of the circum-
stances.” See id.; Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d at 606. The district
court found that Quijada-Moreno “play[ed] the same integral role”
as other coconspirators “to advance the goals” of the conspiracy.
Quijada-Moreno argues that the district court failed to ad-
dress several section 3B1.2 factors in determining his role in the
conspiracy. Specifically, he contends that the district court over-
looked that he “was merely a crew member of a go-fast vessel
transporting drugs,” that he ”was not aware of the scope and struc-
ture” of the conspiracy, that he “did not participate in planning or
USCA11 Case: 21-13788 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2023 Page: 9 of 10
21-13788 Opinion of the Court 9
organizing this trip,” that he ”had no decision-making authority or
. . . influence over decision making,” that he “had no discretion,”
and that he “did as he was told.”
To be sure, the district court didn’t discuss all these factors.
But the district court’s decision was “supported by the record” and
didn’t “involve a misapplication of a rule of law.” See Monzo,
852
F.3d at 1345 (“The district court’s ‘choice between two permissible
views of the evidence’ concerning the defendant’s role in the of-
fense will rarely constitute clear error ‘[s]o long as the basis of the
trial court’s decision is supported by the record and does not in-
volve a misapplication of a rule of law.’” (citation omitted)).
The district court’s finding was based on the agent’s testi-
mony that Quijada-Moreno had a critical role in the conspiracy—
that he was “right under” the main coconspirator in the hierarchy
because he was trusted to meet with the heroin supplier, transport
the heroin and money from Chicago to Florida, and provide the
heroin to other couriers. And, while Quijada-Moreno argues that
he was just a courier—“a crew member of a go-fast vessel trans-
porting drugs”—we’ve said that “courier status in and of itself is
not dispositive of whether a defendant is entitled to or precluded
from receiving a downward adjustment for role in the offense.”
Rodriguez De Varon,
175 F.3d at 942.
Because the record supported the district court’s finding that
Quijada-Moreno’s “role in the offense” was not minor, and because
the district court didn’t misapply a rule of law, we will not disturb
the district court’s factual determination that Quijada-Moreno
USCA11 Case: 21-13788 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2023 Page: 10 of 10
10 Opinion of the Court 21-13788
played more than a minor role in the conspiracy. See Monzo,
852
F.3d at 1345.
AFFIRMED.
