USA v. Jerriston Lavon Mason

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 29, 2010
JOHN LEY
ACTING CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-12436
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-80105-CR-KAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JERRISTON LAVON MASON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 29, 2010)
Before BIRCH, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 6 --

Jerriston Lavon Mason appeals his sentence of 176 months of imprisonment
for possession with intent to distribute at least five grams of crack cocaine. The
district court did not clearly err by denying Mason’s request for a minor-role
reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because Mason did not meet his burden to show
that he played a minor role relative to the conduct attributed to him. Accordingly,
we AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
Mason was indicted for, and pleaded guilty to, one count of possession with
intent to distribute at least five grams of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). R1-
159, 266. During a joint investigation by the Boynton Beach Police Department
(“BBPD”) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) into the distribution of
narcotics, law enforcement officers discovered a network of cocaine providers that
sold powder and crack cocaine. Law enforcement identified several individuals,
including Ronald Godfrey, Jr., who purchased large quantities of powder cocaine
to cook and store as cocaine base before selling the product to local dealers. R2 at
31-32. After a search of Mason’s residence revealed approximately 40 grams of
cocaine, Mason told law enforcement that he purchased the crack cocaine from
Godfrey. Id. at 30-31.
2

-- 2 of 6 --

The probation officer first calculated a base offense level of 28 based on the
guideline for 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), but based on two prior felonies, Mason was
sentenced as a career offender under § 4B1.1(a). Since the statutory maximum for
Mason’s possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine charge was 40 years, the
probation officer calculated an offense level of 34 pursuant to § 4B1.1(b). The
probation officer found that Mason was entitled to a two-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility pursuant to § 3E1.1(a) and an additional one-level
decrease for assisting in the investigation by timely notifying the authorities of his
intention to plead guilty pursuant to § 3E1.1(b). In the PSI role assessment, the
probation officer did not recommend an upward or downward adjustment for
Mason’s role in the conspiracy. Mason’s final adjusted offense level was a 31 with
a criminal history category of VI, due to his career offender status, yielding a
sentence range of 188 to 235 months. The statutory minimum for Mason’s charge
is 5 years with a maximum of 40 years.
Mason objected to the PSI and, at the sentencing hearing, requested a two-
level reduction. R3 at 3. Mason argued that because he was “at the bottom of the
food chain” in the conspiracy, he, unlike many of his co-conspirators, did not have
any information to provide in order to receive a § 5K1.1 or Rule 35(a) reduction
for substantial assistance, and that granting him a role adjustment would resolve
3

-- 3 of 6 --

any sentencing disparities. Id. at 3-6. Mason acknowledged that he was only
assessed with the drugs that he personally possessed. Id. at 6. The court stated that
if Mason had been assessed with all of the drugs involved in the conspiracy, he
would be a minor participant as compared to the whole conspiracy. Id. at 7.
However, the sentencing court denied the request for minor role reduction, finding
that the facts did not justify a finding of minor role because “if he’s only being
held responsible for the amount he had, then he’s not minor with respect to that
aspect of the conspiracy.” Id. The court then sentenced Mason to 176 months’
imprisonment and 4 years of supervised release. Id. at 12.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mason argues that the district court clearly erred in denying him
a two-level mitigating role reduction because he was a minor participant in an
overall conspiracy. Specifically, Mason argues that compared to his nine
identifiable co-defendants, who were involved in an overall criminal scheme
involving importing and distributing narcotics over the course of six months,
Mason himself was responsible for only one transaction during the course of the
conspiracy, making him less culpable than the average participant.
A sentencing court's determination of a defendant's role in an offense
constitutes a factual finding that is reviewed for clear error. United States v.
4

-- 4 of 6 --

Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). The defendant
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled
to a mitigating role reduction. Id. at 939. The sentencing guidelines provide for a
two-level reduction for a minor participant, which is a defendant “who is less
culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as
minimal.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and comment. (n.5). The district court applies a two-
part analysis to determine whether to award a downward adjustment, first assessing
the defendant’s role in the criminal activity and then comparing the defendant’s
conduct to that of his cohorts. De Varon, 175 F.3d at 940-41, 944. “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 district court did not clearly err in denying Mason’s request for a two-
level mitigating role reduction. Mason did not argue that he played a minor role in
the offense for which he pleaded guilty, possession with intent to distribute at least
five grams of crack cocaine. Instead, Mason accepted responsibility for the
amount of drugs in his possession and argued only that compared to other
individuals involved in the larger conspiracy, he was less culpable. The sentencing
5

-- 5 of 6 --

court made a factual finding that Mason was not entitled to a minor role reduction
because he was not assessed with the amount of drugs involved in the whole
conspiracy, but rather was only held accountable for the amount of drugs that he
actually possessed. R3 at 4-5, 7. We allow a mitigating role reduction only for a
defendant who proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he played a minor
role in the conduct that is actually attributed to him. De Varon, 175 F.3d at 944.
Mason failed to meet his burden of proof for the first part of the De Varon analysis
since he was not held accountable for offenses or amounts of drugs in the larger
conspiracy. 175 F.3d at 940-41. Thus, Mason was not entitled to a minor role
adjustment, and the court did not clearly err in denying his request.
III. CONCLUSION
Because Mason failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that he played a
minor role relative to the conduct attributed to him, we hold the district court did
not clearly err by denying his request for a minor-role reduction pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
6

-- 6 of 6 --