UNITED STATES v. SLOAN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-30No. No. 20-30196

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment and 84-month sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of both the minimal participant and minor participant reductions under the sentencing guidelines.

Charles Anthony Sloan appealed an 84-month sentence for methamphetamine conspiracy and distribution offenses, arguing the district court improperly denied him a reduction for minimal participation under the sentencing guidelines. The appellate court reviewed the district court's interpretation of the guidelines de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and its discretionary application of the guidelines for abuse of discretion.

The court found that the district court properly considered all relevant factors in evaluating Sloan's request for a minimal participant reduction. Although the court acknowledged certain mitigating circumstances—such as Sloan's lack of direct control over the drugs or sale proceeds—it reasonably concluded that these were outweighed by Sloan's decision-making authority, his knowledge of the criminal enterprise's scope and structure, and the nature of his involvement. The court similarly rejected Sloan's alternative argument for a minor participant adjustment, finding no abuse of discretion in concluding that Sloan was not substantially less culpable than typical participants in the conspiracy.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether district court properly denied minimal participant reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a)
Whether district court properly denied minor participant adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b)
Whether defendant's decision-making authority and knowledge of criminal structure precluded eligibility for role reductions

Procedural posture

Sloan appealed the district court's judgment and sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and distribution of methamphetamine.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Anthony Sloan appeals from the district courts judgment and challenges the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sloan contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minimal participant reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a). We review the district courts interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and its application of the Guidelines for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

The record reflects that the district court properly considered the factors listed in the commentary to the mitigating role Guideline. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). The court acknowledged Sloans mitigating circumstances, including that Sloan was not entrusted with the drugs for sale or the proceeds from the sale, but reasonably denied the reduction in light of Sloans decision-making authority, his awareness of the scope and structure of the criminal activity, and the nature of his participation. See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016) (district court may deny a § 3B1.2 adjustment even if some factors weigh in favor of a reduction). To the extent Sloan also contends that the court erred by denying a minor participant adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Sloan was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant” in the criminal activity. See United States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2018). Under the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C), n.4, n.5.

AFFIRMED.