USA v. James Miranda

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10707
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cr-00068-JES-DNF-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES MIRANDA,
a.k.a. Fat Boy,
a.k.a. Shawn,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(October 3, 2012)
Before HULL, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-10707 Date Filed: 10/03/2012 Page: 1 of 6

-- 1 of 6 --

James Miranda appeals his 120-month sentence imposed after pleading
guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone, distribution of
oxycodone, and distribution of cocaine. He argues that the district court erred in
denying his request for a mitigating-role adjustment under the Sentencing
Guidelines. After careful review, we affirm.
I.
Miranda pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, multiple counts of distribution of
oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and multiple counts
of distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). At
sentencing, the district court adopted the factual findings in the presentence
investigation report (“PSI”), and held Miranda accountable for 7,109 pills of
oxycodone, the total number of pills distributed by the whole conspiracy during
the period he was a member of it. Miranda sold oxycodone as part of a conspiracy
to unlawfully acquire prescription drugs (primarily oxycodone) and distribute
them. According to the PSI, when law enforcement officers visited the drug house
under surveillance in order to purchase drugs, Miranda would usually be the
person selling the drugs. The PSI also indicated that Miranda played a larger role
in the conspiracy than merely selling drugs: he seemingly protected the drug
2
Case: 12-10707 Date Filed: 10/03/2012 Page: 2 of 6

-- 2 of 6 --

house with a loaded shotgun pointed at the entrance; he screened prospective
buyers to ensure they were not law enforcement officers by questioning buyers
and, sometimes, forcing them to use the drugs before buying them; and he
arranged for future transactions by giving buyers his cell phone number.
Based on the number of pills involved, the total offense level was 31.
Although Miranda requested a reduction for his minor role in the offenses, the
court did not apply a mitigating-role adjustment. The offense level, combined
with a criminal history category of III, resulted in a guideline range of 135-168
months. The district court departed downward from this range and sentenced
Miranda to 120 months’ imprisonment. This is Miranda’s appeal.
II.
We review a district court’s determination of a defendant’s role in the
offense, a finding of fact, only for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez De
Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). At sentencing, the
defendant has the burden of proving a mitigating role in the offense by a
preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 939. “[A] district court is not required to
make any specific findings other than the ultimate determination of the
defendant’s role in the offense.” Id. at 940. We should affirm “[s]o long as the
basis of the [district] court’s decision is supported by the record and does not
3
Case: 12-10707 Date Filed: 10/03/2012 Page: 3 of 6

-- 3 of 6 --

involve a misapplication of a rule of law.” Id. at 945.
III.
A district court may grant a 4-level reduction in the offense level to a
“minimal participant” in the crime, a 2-level reduction to a “minor participant,”
and a 3-level reduction to cases falling in between. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. A “minimal
participant” is a defendant who is “plainly among the least culpable of those
involved in the conduct of a group,” and a “minor participant” is one who is “less
culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as
minimal.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (nn. 4-5).
In making the mitigating-role determination, the district court must first
measure the defendant’s role against the relevant conduct for which he has been
held accountable. De Varon, 175 F.3d at 940. “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 . . . .” Id. at
944. Second, to the extent the record permits, the court may measure the
defendant’s culpability in comparison to that of other participants in the relevant
conduct. Id. The district court may grant a reduction only if the defendant was
less culpable than most other participants. Id.
4
Case: 12-10707 Date Filed: 10/03/2012 Page: 4 of 6

-- 4 of 6 --

Miranda argues that the district court clearly erred in denying a mitigating-
role adjustment because he was not personally responsible for the quantity of
drugs for which he was held accountable. We disagree. Although he was held
accountable for more drugs than he personally sold, the record supports a
conclusion that Miranda was neither a minor participant nor a minimal one. As
discussed above, he played a larger role in the conspiracy than selling drugs, and
the record does not indicate that he sold an insignificant portion of the drugs for
which he was held accountable.
Additionally, the record reflects that Miranda was not, as he suggests, the
“bottom person in the hierarchy.” Although he did not organize the conspiracy or
acquire the drugs for it, he served an integral role by routinely selling drugs out of
a house over a period of approximately four months. See United States v.
Matthews, 168 F.3d 1234, 1249 (11th Cir. 1999) (“The district court, considering a
drug distribution conspiracy, is justified in denying a downward departure . . . to
any defendant who regularly sells . . . drugs . . . .”). The record supports a
conclusion that Miranda was no less culpable than some other members of the
conspiracy, such as those who acquired the oxycodone.
Because we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying
Miranda’s request for a mitigating-role adjustment, we affirm.
5
Case: 12-10707 Date Filed: 10/03/2012 Page: 5 of 6

-- 5 of 6 --

AFFIRMED.
6
Case: 12-10707 Date Filed: 10/03/2012 Page: 6 of 6

-- 6 of 6 --