United States v. Dure

First Circuit

United States v. Dure

181 F.3d 81

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided February 12, 1999·No. 98-1686·Published·Cited by 18 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant's request for an adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 (mitigating role in offense). On the facts before it, the district court reasonably concluded that the drug trafficking offense was a "joint venture" that "would not have occurred without [defendant's] participation." Even though defendant may have been less culpable than his joint venture partner, still defendant was not "less culpable than the average participant" in similar drug trafficking conspiracies, [*2] and so he was not entitled to any adjustment. See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 460 (1st Cir. 1994).

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant's request for an adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 (mitigating role in offense). On the facts before it, the district court reasonably concluded that the drug trafficking offense was a "joint venture" that "would not have occurred without [defendant's] participation." Even though defendant may have been less culpable than his joint venture partner, still defendant was not "less culpable than the average participant" in similar drug trafficking conspiracies, [*2] and so he was not entitled to any adjustment. See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 460 (1st Cir. 1994).

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.

United States v. Dure, 181 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 1999).

Pincite

181 F.3d 81 (United States v. Dure) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related