USA v. Eguez-Avila

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APR 25, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-14608
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20401-JAL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID FERNANDO EGUEZ-AVILA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 25, 2011)
Before WILSON, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
David Fernando Eguez-Avila appeals his 37-month sentence, which was
imposed after he pleaded guilty to importing 500 grams or more of cocaine into

-- 1 of 3 --

the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(b)(2)(B). Eguez-
Avila argues that the district court erred in denying his request for a minor-role
reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Specifically, he argues that the court
committed clear error by finding his status as a courier dispositive and failing to
properly weigh the applicable factors.
We review a district court’s denial of a minor-role reduction for clear error.
United States v. Bernal-Benitez, 594 F.3d 1303, 1320 (11th Cir. 2010). This
review is highly deferential, which reflects the “considerable discretion [of the
district court] in making this fact-intensive determination.” United States v. Boyd,
291 F.3d 1274, 1277–78 (11th Cir. 2002).
The proponent of the reduction has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that his role in the offense was minor. United
States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 939 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc).
“Only if the defendant can establish that [he] played a relatively minor role in the
conduct for which [he] has already been held accountable—not a minor role in any
larger criminal conspiracy—should the district court grant a downward adjustment
for minor role in the offense.” Id. at 944. The court may also examine the
defendant’s role in relation to other discernible participants, to the extent they are
involved in the relevant conduct itself. Id. at 944–45. “[W]hen a drug courier’s
2

-- 2 of 3 --

relevant conduct is limited to her own act of importation, a district court may
legitimately conclude that the courier played an important or essential role in the
importation of those drugs.” Id. at 942–43.
After thorough review, we conclude that the district court did not err in
denying Eguez-Avila’s request for a minor role reduction. To the contrary, the
district court made two factual findings that render the sentence permissible. First,
the court concluded that, based on Eguez-Avila’s statements, he was equally
culpable to others involved in the conduct for which he was being held
accountable. Second, it also concluded that Eguez-Avila was an “integral” part of
the smuggling operation. This is consistent with the analysis we set forth in De
Varon, 175 F.3d at 944–45, and more importantly is the same rationale upon
which we affirmed a district court’s identical denial of a minor-role reduction in
Boyd, 291 F.3d at 1278. Thus, as we did in Boyd, we hold that the district court
did not clearly err in denying Eguez-Avila’s request for a minor-role reduction.
See id.
As a result, we affirm Eguez-Avila’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --