United States v. Matilde Elena Rua Blandon , 154 F. App'x 852 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
November 17, 2005
No. 05-11851 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-20824-CR-JEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MATILDE ELENA RUA BLANDON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(November 17, 2005)
Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Matilde Elene Rua Blandon appeals her 70-month sentence for
importation of heroin and possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 841(a)(1). On appeal, Blandon argues that the district
court erred in not granting her a minor-role reduction because it failed properly to
apply the test from United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en
banc). She argues that, under De Varon, the district court was required to measure
her conduct against the other particpants’ conduct. She argues that because the
district court categorically denied her request for a minor-role reduction based
upon her being a drug courier, and as such, applied a per se preclusive rule, the
standard of review in this case should be de novo, not clear error.
The standard of review for a district court’s determination of whether a
defendant qualifies for a minor-role reduction is clear error. United States v. Boyd,
291 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing De Varon, 175 F.3d at 937-38). The
proponent of the reduction always bears the burden of proving the entitlement to
the reduction by a preponderance of the evidence. De Varon, 175 F.3d at 939. The
Sentencing Guidelines permit a court to decrease a defendant’s offense level by
two points if it finds that the defendant was a “minor participant” in the criminal
activity. U.S.S.G § 3B1.2(b). A defendant is a minor participant if she is “less
culpable than most other participants, but [her] role could not be described as
minimal.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.5. In determining whether a mitigating-role
reduction is warranted, a district court’s decision “should be informed by two
2
principles discerned from the Guidelines: first, the defendant’s role in the relevant
conduct for which she has been held accountable at sentencing, and, second, her
role as compared to that of other participants in her relevant conduct.” De Varon,
175 F.3d at 940. In looking to relevant conduct, “the district court must assess
whether the defendant is a minor or minimal participant in relation to the relevant
conduct attributed to the defendant in calculating her base offense level.” Id. at
941.
The district court determined that because Blandon was held accountable
only for the amount of drugs she imported into the United States, her actual
conduct and her relevant conduct were identical. See DeVaron, 175 F.3d at 942-
43. (“[A] district court may legitimately conclude that the courier played an
important or essential role in the importation of these drugs.”) Thus, concluding
Blandon did not play a minor role in the relevant conduct, the district court was not
required to analyze the DeVaron second prong.
Because the record demonstrates that the district court did not categorically
exclude Blandon from a minor-role reduction and it properly applied the De Varon
analysis, we conclude there was no clear error. Accordingly, we affirm Blandon’s
sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3