by David M. Reutter

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a District Court commits reversible error when, in assessing a defendant’s eligibility for a mitigating-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, it restricts the universe of participants solely to the defendant’s own conduct rather than considering all individuals involved in the relevant drug shipment. Applying its precedent from United States v. Guía-Sendeme, 134 F.4th 611 (1st Cir. 2025), which established a four-part framework for conducting comparative culpability analysis, the Court concluded that the sentencing court improperly narrowed its focus only to the steps the defendant took at the airport while ignoring record evidence of recruiters, organizers, and others who coordinated the drug transport. Because the District Court failed to identify the correct field of comparators, did not properly apply the five factors enumerated in the Guidelines commentary, and placed inappropriate weight on the defendant’s “indispensable” role despite explicit Guidelines language cautioning against such reasoning, the Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Background

On July 1, 2020, Transportation Security Administration personnel at Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico, discovered brick-shaped packages consistent with drug trafficking in a suitcase checked by Crystall Kareem Robles-López for a commercial flight to Newark, New Jersey. Law enforcement opened the bag and found six bricks of suspected cocaine. Agents then retrieved a second suitcase checked by Robles, which contained five additional bricks. Testing confirmed the packages contained approximately 11 kilograms of cocaine with an estimated street value between $154,000 and $225,500. Robles was arrested at the airport.

In her post-arrest statement, Robles admitted she had agreed to transport pre-packed suitcases to Newark in exchange for $1,500 upon delivery and that she checked the luggage knowing it likely contained drugs or money. The presentence investigation report (“PSR”) detailed evidence of multiple other participants in the drug shipment, viz., two recruiters who introduced Robles to “the Organizer,” who then communicated operational details through WhatsApp over approximately two weeks. The night before her flight, an unknown man drove Robles to a hotel where she awaited further instructions. The following morning, the same man drove her to the airport, instructed her to retrieve two pre-packed suitcases from his trunk, and directed her to bypass the USDA checkpoint because the suitcases already bore USDA clearance stickers. The PSR also indicated that Robles had never previously flown on an airplane or traveled outside Puerto Rico.

On December 19, 2022, Robles pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The U.S. Probation Office calculated a Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months, starting with a base offense level of 30, applying a three-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and a three-level mitigating-role adjustment under § 3B1.2, for a total offense level of 24. Referencing the § 3B1.2 factors, the Probation Office concluded that Robles “did not plan or organize the criminal activity, had no decision-making authority as to the criminal activity, and the extent of her participation was limited to the instant matter.”

The Government objected to the role reduction, arguing that under United States v. Arias-Mercedes, 901 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018), Robles was “indispensable” because she was the only conspirator at the airport with the luggage. At the June 20, 2023, sentencing hearing, without inviting argument, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico sustained the Government’s objection. The court stated that precedent required limiting consideration to the particular drug transaction in which Robles was involved, which, according to the court, was only her “attempt[] to transport cocaine from San Juan to Newark in her luggage.” The court remarked that it did not matter that other “participants … recruited her” or that Robles “might not have planned the trip.” Finding a total offense level of 25, the court calculated a Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months and imposed a downward variance sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment based on Robles’ “significant mitigating circumstances.” Robles objected, urging the court to adopt the Probation Office’s analysis.

Analysis

The Court noted that § 3B1.2 permits a two-to-four-level reduction in the base offense level for defendants who are minor or minimal participants in criminal activity. The adjustment’s purpose “is to ‘ensure that a sentence reflects the defendant’s actual role in the offense,’ yielding a Guidelines range that is consistent with ‘the defendant’s relative culpability in the criminal activity.’” Guía-Sendeme. Defendants bear the burden of proving eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Arias-Mercedes.

In Guía-Sendeme, the First Circuit “distilled a four-part analysis for sentencing courts to use in determining a defendant’s relative culpability.” The sentencing court must: “(1) identify the universe of participants involved in the relevant criminal activity; (2) order each participant along a continuum of culpability; (3) identify the average participant across all likely participants; and (4) compare the defendant’s role in the criminal activity to the average participant’s role.” The Court stated that the “average participant” is not a hypothetical figure but rather “someone whose culpability is roughly in the middle of the spectrum between the most culpable and the least culpable participants in the criminal activity at issue.” Arias-Mercedes.

The Court explained that the four-part analysis must be guided by five non-exhaustive factors enumerated in the Guidelines commentary: (i) the degree to which the defendant understood the scope and structure of the criminal activity; (ii) the degree to which the defendant participated in planning or organizing the criminal activity; (iii) the degree to which the defendant exercised or influenced decision-making authority; (iv) the nature and extent of the defendant’s participation, including the acts performed and the responsibility and discretion exercised; and (v) the degree to which the defendant stood to benefit from the criminal activity. Guía-Sendeme (quoting § 3B1.2 cmt. N.3(C)).

Application to the Present Case

The Court determined that the District Court “legally erred in its assessment of Robles’s eligibility for the PSR-recommended role reduction.” The sentencing court misunderstood Arias-Mercedes by “narrowing the scope of its relative culpability analysis too far.” Instead of identifying “the ‘relevant conduct as a whole’ to determine the ‘field of comparators’ – the ‘essential starting point’ of a meaningful relative culpability analysis” – the District Court “recognized only the steps Robles herself took to smuggle the two suitcases of cocaine through the airport and onto the plane.” See Guía-Sendeme.

The Court explained that although First Circuit precedent limits the comparison for a one-time courier not involved in the broader trafficking conspiracy to the particular drug shipment in which the defendant personally participated, that limitation does not reduce the analysis to the defendant alone. Rather, the sentencing court had to consider the full set of participants involved in preparing and carrying out Robles’ specific shipment, including those who recruited her, communicated instructions, arranged the logistics, supplied the pre-packed suitcases, transported her, and directed her how to proceed at the airport. Because the District Court declined to consider activities undertaken “in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense,” it failed to identify the full universe of relevant participants, the Court determined.

The Court further concluded that the District Court did not properly engage with the § 3B1.2 factors. Rather than using them to conduct comparative analysis, the District Court “merely recited them to reiterate the facts that made Robles guilty of the crimes for which she was charged.” The Court observed that “[t]he purpose of the § 3B1.2 factors is not to establish guilt; it is to help a court decide whether to apply leniency because a defendant, while guilty, played a substantially subordinate role in the criminal activity.” Guía-Sendeme.

The District Court also committed legal error by placing “inappropriate determinative weight” on the Government’s assertion that Robles’ role was indispensable, according to the Court. The Guidelines explicitly caution that “an essential or indispensable role in the criminal activity is not determinative” of eligibility for a role adjustment. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). Similarly, the District Court incorrectly treated Robles’ expected payment as a negative factor, despite Guidelines language indicating that “a defendant who … is simply being paid to perform certain tasks should be considered for an adjustment.” Id.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court vacated Robles’ sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with its opinion. See: United States v. Robles-López, 169 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2026). 

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login