United States v. Dure
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.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(remanding case for evidentiary hearing on defendant’s claim that Sixth Amendment violated where, he alleged, jury selection was closed for some hours by court security officer)
-
(“[T]he tolling rule set out in § 12 508:10 only applies to the defendants named in the first action.”)
Cited by 18 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.