USCA11 Case: 22-10778 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2023 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-10778
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS ALBERTO QUINCHIA-CARMONA,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20305-BB-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10778 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2023 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10778
Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Quinchia-Carmona appeals his sentence of 65
months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to import 5 or more kilo-
grams of cocaine into the United States. He argues on appeal that
the district court clearly erred when it declined to give him a mini-
mal-role reduction and instead gave him a minor-role reduction
under § 3B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We dis-
agree, and we therefore affirm.
I.
Quinchia-Carmona pleaded guilty to one count of conspir-
acy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine into the United
States, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 963. The factual proffer for the
plea stated that Quinchia-Carmona helped repair a dock and pre-
pare a waterfront home and a second “stash house” in Puerto Rico
for the arrival of a boat containing 580 kilograms of cocaine from
South America. The factual proffer further stated that when the
boat arrived at the waterfront home in Puerto Rico, Quinchia-Car-
mona helped load the cocaine into duffle bags and move it first into
the waterfront home and then into the stash house. It also stated
that Quinchia-Carmona was paid $70,000 for his help in offloading
the cocaine. Quinchia-Carmona signed the factual proffer and ad-
mitted during his plea colloquy that the facts in the proffer were
true.
USCA11 Case: 22-10778 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2023 Page: 3 of 6
22-10778 Opinion of the Court 3
At sentencing, Quinchia-Carmona argued that a four-level
“minimal-role” reduction should be applied to his Sentencing
Guidelines offense level because his involvement in the offense was
limited to picking up duffel bags from a boat, carrying them to a
house, then transporting them to another house nearby. He ar-
gued that he played a minimal role in the conspiracy in comparison
to the mastermind of the scheme, and that he was the least im-
portant member of the conspiracy because anyone could have per-
formed the tasks that he did, and other people involved had much
more specialized roles in the conspiracy.
The district court agreed that Quinchia-Carmona was less
culpable than most of the other participants in the conspiracy, but
it determined that he was entitled to only a two-level “minor-role”
reduction, not a four-level “minimal-role” reduction. Applying
that reduction, the court calculated an adjusted offense level of 27.
With Quinchia-Carmona’s criminal-history category (I), the ad-
justed offense level resulted in a Guidelines range of 70–87 months
in prison. The district court imposed a below-guideline sentence
of 65 months in prison followed by 5 years of supervised release.
Quinchia-Carmona now appeals.
II.
We review a district court’s denial of a role reduction for
clear error. United States v. Cruickshank,
837 F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th
Cir. 2016). District courts have “considerable discretion in making
this fact-intensive determination.” United States v. Boyd,
291 F.3d
1274, 1277–78 (11th Cir. 2002). As long as the “court’s decision is
USCA11 Case: 22-10778 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2023 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10778
supported by the record and does not involve a misapplication of a
rule of law,” the “choice between two permissible views of the ev-
idence as to the defendant’s role in the offense will rarely constitute
clear error.” Cruickshank,
837 F.3d at 1192 (quotation omitted).
The defendant has the burden of proving his mitigating role in the
offense by a preponderance of the evidence when he requests a
downward adjustment. United States v. De Varon,
175 F.3d 930,
939 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc).
The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two- to four-level
mitigating-role reduction for defendants whose role in an offense
makes them “substantially less culpable than the average partici-
pant in the criminal activity.” U.S.S.G § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(A). The
four-level reduction is reserved for defendants who played “a min-
imal role in the criminal activity,” and were “plainly among the
least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group.” Id.,
cmt. n.4. A “defendant’s lack of knowledge or understanding of
the scope and structure of the enterprise and of the activities of oth-
ers is indicative of a role as minimal participant.” Id. For purposes
of the two-level reduction, a minor participant is one “who is less
culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be
described as minimal.” Id., cmt. n.5.
The determination of whether to apply a mitigating-role ad-
justment “is heavily dependent upon the facts of the particular
case.” Id., cmt. n.3(C). “Two principles guide a district court’s con-
sideration: (1) the court must compare the defendant’s role in the
offense with the relevant conduct attributed to him in calculating
USCA11 Case: 22-10778 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2023 Page: 5 of 6
22-10778 Opinion of the Court 5
his base offense level; and (2) the court may compare the defend-
ant’s conduct to that of other participants involved in the offense.”
United States v. Alvarez-Coria,
447 F.3d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir. 2006).
As to the first principle, the foremost consideration is the de-
fendant’s role as measured “against the relevant conduct for which
she has been held accountable.” De Varon,
175 F.3d at 940. Thus,
“where the relevant conduct attributed to a defendant is identical
to her actual conduct,” she cannot establish that she is entitled to a
mitigating-role adjustment “simply by pointing to some broader
criminal scheme in which she was a minor participant but for
which she was not held accountable at sentencing.”
Id. at 941. In
many cases, measuring the defendant’s role against the relevant
conduct for which he was held accountable at sentencing will be
dispositive in the mitigating-role analysis. United States v. Ber-
nal-Benitez,
594 F.3d 1303, 1321 n.25 (11th Cir. 2010)
As to the second principle, the district court may also meas-
ure the defendant’s role against the other discernable participants
in the relevant conduct. De Varon,
175 F.3d at 944–45. Only those
participants who were involved in the relevant conduct attributed
to the defendant should be considered in this comparison.
Id. at
944. And even “if a defendant played a lesser role than the other
participants, that fact does not entitle her to a role reduction since
it is possible that none are minor or minimal participants.” United
States v. Martin,
803 F.3d 581, 591 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation omit-
ted).
USCA11 Case: 22-10778 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/16/2023 Page: 6 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 22-10778
The district court did not clearly err in finding that
Quinchia-Carmona was entitled to a minor-role reduction rather
than a minimal-role reduction. The record supports the district
court’s determination that Quinchia-Carmona was less culpable
than others involved in the conspiracy to import cocaine into
Puerto Rico, in that he did not plan the offense and did not appear
to have decision-making authority. See U.S.S.G § 3B1.2, cmt.
n.3(C). But he appeared to have some knowledge of the scope and
structure of the drug-importation scheme, given his cooperation
with other participants in offloading the cocaine from the boat. See
id. And his role in that scheme was not minimal; he was personally
involved in preparing the delivery site and the stash house and un-
loading and transporting 580 kilograms of cocaine in Puerto Rico.
Cf. De Varon,
175 F.3d at 943 (where the defendant participates as
a drug courier, “the amount of drugs imported is a material consid-
eration in assessing a defendant’s role in her relevant conduct”).
Additionally, Quinchia-Carmona received a substantial payment of
$70,000 for aiding the conspiracy.
III.
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm Quinchia-Car-
mona’s conviction and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
