In United States v. Klensch, --- F.4th ---, No. 22-50222 (9th Cir. 2023), the Court vacated a sentence imposed following the defendant’s guilty plea to one count of transportation of an illegal alien, and remanded for resentencing.
On appeal, Klensch argued that the district court applied the wrong legal standard when it determined that he was not entitled to a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because he personally transported two men.
The opinion contains helpful language rejecting the government's argument for plain-error review. As to the merits, the Court explained:
Here, the district court’s analysis of the minor-role reduction is thin. It did not question the parties about or discuss at the sentencing hearing the factors that govern the comparative-liability analysis or the facts relevant to that analysis. Rather, after the parties’ arguments, it simply pronounced: "In this particular case, Mr. Klensch was the one transporting the individuals. And I don’t find that there is sufficient evidence that his role was minor in this case."Here, the district court’s cursory explanation gives no indication that it considered the required factors or did any comparative analysis of Klensch’s conduct. While it was not required to mechanically analyze each factor or reference them verbatim on the record, Diaz, 884 F.3d at 914, 916, providing some explanation, even in general terms, of how the considerations embodied in the factors apply in this case “is part and parcel of considering” them.The district court’s singular and cursory explanation for not granting a minor-role reduction, referencing only that Klensch drove the two men, indicates that the district court improperly relied “on courier conduct as dispositive,” despite the Guidelines’ clarification “that performance of an essential role . . . is not dispositive.”While we generally assume that the district court applied the correct legal standard, we cannot do so when the record indicates the contrary.
The Court, therefore, vacated and remanded, although it affirmed the district court's imposition of a dangerous-weapons enhancement
