United States v. Dure

First Circuit

United States v. Dure

181 F.3d 81

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedFebruary 12, 1999

Docket98-1686

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 181 F.3d 81 (United States v. Dure) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 F.3d 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dure-ca1-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack