In United States v. Rodriguez, --- Fed. App'x ---, No. 20-50006 (9th Cir. 2021), the Court vacated the sentence, finding the district court erred in denying minor role.
The Court discussed the relevant factors in detail.
Regarding the first factor, "[t]he district court provided that, '[i]f you say, well, she didn’t know . . . who was at the top of this drug organization, she had no idea where the methamphetamine came from, she didn’t know all the players involved, that type of analysis would describe every importer of drugs into the United States.' Even if true in some cases, Diaz teaches that this exact fact is indicative of a minor role in the crime. Id. The fact that Rodriguez “was kept in the dark” is an important consideration under Diaz that weighs in favor of a minor role reduction. As a result, the district court abused its discretion in applying the first factor."
Regarding the second factor, "[t]he district court explained that while Rodriguez 'didn’t come up with the plan,' she '[o]f course” was part of the plan. In light of Diaz, as well as the plain wording of application note 3(C)(ii), the district court abused its discretion in reaching this conclusion. Participating in the plan is not participating in the planning of the plan. Every person involved in the crime participates in the plan, but minor participants do not generally participate in the planning of the crime."
"During the sentencing hearing [] the district court suggested that the fact a defendant did not know the type and amount of drugs he or she was transporting should only weigh in favor of the reduction if the defendant actually tried to investigate that fact for him or herself . . . Such an inquiry negates the dictate in Diaz that this lack of knowledge weighs in favor of the minor role reduction, as well as the purpose of the 2015 amendments to the section 3B1.2 commentary of broadening the reduction’s application. As the district court recognized, it would be very atypical for a courier to ask such questions, especially given the disparity of power between a drug courier and someone with such knowledge. To the extent the district court imposed a duty of inquiry upon Rodriguez in connection with the application of the second factor of note 3(C), this too was an abuse of discretion."
Regarding the fifth factor, “the degree to which the defendant stood to benefit from the criminal activity, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C)(v), the district court concluded that this factor weighed against the reduction since '$8,000 is not an insubstantial amount for importers of drugs' . . . . The district court appeared to conclude that the comparison should be between the amount received and the amount the court thinks a courier would believe is a lot of money. This proposed comparison is purely speculative. The more concrete comparison is between the payment amount and the monetary value of the cargo, or some other scale that places the payment in relation to the worth of, or risk to, the enterprise."
There is a partial dissent on one of the factors.
