Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David Rosales-Soto appealed his 60-month sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr.) following a criminal conviction. Rosales-Soto challenged the sentence on two grounds: first, that the district court erred in classifying him as a minor participant rather than a minimal participant under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, which would have warranted a four-level offense-level reduction instead of the two-level reduction granted; and second, that his 60-month sentence was substantively unreasonable because it created an unwarranted disparity with the sentences of his codefendants, specifically his sister who received 15 months and another codefendant who received 29 months. The district court had calculated a Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months but adopted the probation office's recommendation of a 60-month downward variance.
The Ninth Circuit exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. The panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Bumatay, VanDyke, and Mendoza Jr., determined the case suitable for decision without oral argument. The court reviewed the district court's selection of a sentencing guideline de novo, findings of fact for clear error, and application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion, citing United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. Regarding the role adjustment, the court held that the district court applied the correct legal standard under United States v. Dominguez-Caicedo, 40 F.4th 938 (9th Cir. 2022), and U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and did not abuse its discretion in granting a two-level minor-role reduction rather than a four-level minimal-role reduction. The court emphasized that a minimal-participant reduction is reserved for a defendant 'plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of [the] group,' per U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. 4. The large quantity of drugs Rosales-Soto was tasked with delivering and the language in communications between codefendants provided a reasonable basis for finding his role greater than minimal, consistent with the factors in U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. 3(C). The determination was not 'illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record.'
On the substantive reasonableness challenge, the court held that the 60-month sentence was not an abuse of discretion. It reiterated that 'a disparity in sentencing among co-defendants is not, by itself, a sufficient ground for attacking an otherwise proper sentence under the guidelines,' citing United States v. Bussell, 504 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2007). The record demonstrated the district court adequately considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and the court need not 'tick off sentencing factors to show that it considered them,' per United States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911, 914–15 (9th Cir. 2018). The 60-month sentence, which was below the Guidelines range and adopted the probation office's recommendation, was supported by the record as a whole, consistent with United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008).
Key Takeaways
- A minimal-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a) requires a defendant to be 'plainly among the least culpable' participants; the district court's factual finding that a defendant does not meet this standard is reviewed for clear error and will stand if supported by reasonable inferences from the record.
- The quantity of drugs a defendant is tasked with delivering and communications among codefendants are relevant factors under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. 3(C) in assessing role in the offense.
- Sentencing disparities among codefendants do not, by themselves, render a sentence substantively unreasonable; the focus is on whether the district court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors.
- A below-Guidelines sentence that adopts the probation office's recommended variance is entitled to deference, and the court's reasoning may be inferred from the presentence report and the record as a whole.
Why It Matters
This memorandum disposition reinforces the Ninth Circuit's deferential standard of review for role-in-the-offense determinations under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, clarifying that the distinction between minor and minimal participant turns on whether the defendant is 'plainly among the least culpable.' It also reaffirms that codefendant sentencing disparities are not per se grounds for reversal, provided the district court considered the statutory sentencing factors. The decision illustrates the practical effect of a downward variance from a Guidelines range of 70–87 months to 60 months based on probation's recommendation, and confirms that a district court's explanation for a sentence may be inferred from the record rather than requiring explicit articulation of each § 3553(a) factor.