AMENDMENT 635
The Commentary to §3B1.2 is amended by striking Notes 1 through 4 and the background as follows:
"1. Subsection (a) applies to a defendant who plays a minimal role in concerted activity. It is intended to cover defendants who are plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group. Under this provision, the defendant’s lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise and of the activities of others is indicative of a role as minimal participant.
2. It is intended that the downward adjustment for a minimal participant will be used infrequently. It would be appropriate, for example, for someone who played no other role in a very large drug smuggling operation than to offload part of a single marihuana shipment, or in a case where an individual was recruited as a courier for a single smuggling transaction involving a small amount of drugs.
3. For purposes of §3B1.2(b), a minor participant means any participant who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.
4. If a defendant has received a lower offense level by virtue of being convicted of an offense significantly less serious than warranted by his actual criminal conduct, a reduction for a mitigating role under this section ordinarily is not warranted because such defendant is not substantially less culpable than a defendant whose only conduct involved the less serious offense. For example, if a defendant whose actual conduct involved a minimal role in the distribution of 25 grams of cocaine (an offense having a Chapter Two offense level of 14 under §2D1.1) is convicted of simple possession of cocaine (an offense having a Chapter Two offense level of 6 under §2D2.1), no reduction for a mitigating role is warranted because the defendant is not substantially less culpable than a defendant whose only conduct involved the simple possession of cocaine.
Background: This section provides a range of adjustments for a defendant who plays a part in committing the offense that makes him substantially less culpable than the average participant. The determination whether to apply subsection (a) or subsection (b), or an intermediate adjustment, involves a determination that is heavily dependent upon the facts of the particular case.",
and inserting the following:
"1. Definition.—For purposes of this guideline, ‘participant’ has the meaning given that term in Application Note 1 of §3B1.1 (Aggravating Role).
2. Requirement of Multiple Participants.—This guideline is not applicable unless more than one participant was involved in the offense. See the Introductory Commentary to this Part (Role in the Offense). Accordingly, an adjustment under this guideline may not apply to a defendant who is the only defendant convicted of an offense unless that offense involved other participants in addition to the defendant and the defendant otherwise qualifies for such an adjustment.
3. Applicability of Adjustment.—
(A) Substantially Less Culpable than Average Participant.—This section provides a range of adjustments for a defendant who plays a part in committing the offense that makes him substantially less culpable than the average participant.
A defendant who is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) only for the conduct in which the defendant personally was involved and who performs a limited function in concerted criminal activity is not precluded from consideration for an adjustment under this guideline. For example, a defendant who is convicted of a drug trafficking offense, whose role in that offense was limited to transporting or storing drugs and who is accountable under §1B1.3 only for the quantity of drugs the defendant personally transported or stored is not precluded from consideration for an adjustment under this guideline.
(B) Conviction of Significantly Less Serious Offense.—If a defendant has received a lower offense level by virtue of being convicted of an offense significantly less serious than warranted by his actual criminal conduct, a reduction for a mitigating role under this section ordinarily is not warranted because such defendant is not substantially less culpable than a defendant whose only conduct involved the less serious offense. For example, if a defendant whose actual conduct involved a minimal role in the distribution of 25 grams of cocaine (an offense having a Chapter Two offense level of level 14 under §2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy)) is convicted of simple possession of cocaine (an offense having a Chapter Two offense level of level 6 under §2D2.1 (Unlawful Possession; Attempt or Conspiracy)), no reduction for a mitigating role is warranted because the defendant is not substantially less culpable than a defendant whose only conduct involved the simple possession of cocaine.
(C) Fact-Based Determination.—The determination whether to apply subsection (a) or subsection (b), or an intermediate adjustment, involves a determination that is heavily dependent upon the facts of the particular case. As with any other factual issue, the court, in weighing the totality of the circumstances, is not required to find, based solely on the defendant’s bare assertion, that such a role adjustment is warranted.
4. Minimal Participant.—Subsection (a) applies to a defendant described in Application Note 3(A) who plays a minimal role in concerted activity. It is intended to cover defendants who are plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of a group. Under this provision, the defendant’s lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise and of the activities of others is indicative of a role as minimal participant. It is intended that the downward adjustment for a minimal participant will be used infrequently.
5. Minor Participant.— Subsection (b) applies to a defendant described in Application Note 3(A) who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.".
Reason for Amendment: This amendment resolves a circuit conflict regarding whether a defendant who is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) only for conduct in which the defendant personally was involved, and who performs a limited function in concerted criminal activity, is precluded from consideration for an adjustment under §3B1.2 (Mitigating Role). Compare United States v. Burnett, 66 F.3d 137 (7th Cir. 1995) ("where a defendant is sentenced only for the amount of drugs he handled, he is not entitled to a §3B1.2 reduction"), with United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (a defendant is not automatically precluded from consideration for a mitigating role adjustment in a case in which the defendant is held accountable solely for the amount of drugs he personally handled). Although this circuit conflict arose in the context of a drug offense, the amendment resolves it in a manner that makes the rule applicable to all types of offenses.
The amendment adopts the approach articulated by the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, supra, that §3B1.2 does not automatically preclude a defendant from being considered for a mitigating role adjustment in a case in which the defendant is held accountable under §1B1.3 solely for the amount of drugs the defendant personally handled. In considering a §3B1.2 adjustment, a court must measure the defendant’s role against the relevant conduct for which the defendant is held accountable at sentencing, whether or not other defendants are charged.
In contrast to the holding in United States v. Burnett, supra, this amendment allows the court to apply traditional analysis on the applicability of a reduction pursuant to §3B1.2, even in a case in which a defendant is held liable under §1B1.3 only for conduct (such as drug quantities) in which the defendant was involved personally.
The substantive impact of this amendment in resolving the circuit conflict is to provide, in the context of a drug courier, for example, that the court is not precluded from considering a §3B1.2 adjustment simply because the defendant’s role in the offense was limited to transporting or storing drugs, and the defendant was accountable under §1B1.3 only for the quantity of drugs the defendant personally transported or stored. The amendment does not require that such a defendant receive a reduction under §3B1.2, or suggest that such a defendant can receive a reduction based only on those facts; rather, the amendment provides only that such a defendant is not precluded from consideration for such a reduction if the defendant otherwise qualifies for the reduction pursuant to the terms of §3B1.2.
In addition to resolving the circuit conflict, the amendment makes the following non-substantive revisions to §3B1.2 to clarify guideline application: (1) incorporating commentary from the Introduction to Chapter Three, Part B (Role in the Offense) that there must be more than one participant before application of a mitigating role adjustment may be considered; (2) incorporating into this guideline the definition of "participant" from §3B1.1 (Aggravating Role); (3) moving into an application note significant background commentary that has been cited frequently in appellate decisions; (4) adding a section on fact-based determinations to Application Note 3 that emphasizes the significant judicial role in decision-making on the applicability of §3B1.2; (5) maintaining commentary language that the minimal role adjustment is intended to be used infrequently; and (6) making technical amendments to the Commentary to clarify applicable rules (such as the addition of headings for, and the reordering of, application notes in the commentary) that are intended to have no substantive impact.
The language regarding "average participant" is moved from the Background into Application Note 3(A) to provide guidance as to the applicability of §3B1.2. For a reduction to apply, the court, at a minimum, must make a factual determination that the defendant’s role was significantly less culpable than the average participant.
Effective Date: The effective date of this amendment is November 1, 2001.