United States v. Naranjo-Aguilar.
No. 24-7050. 9/16/2025. E.D.Okla. Judge Bacharach. US Sentencing Guidelines—Downward Variance for Minor Participant—Procedural and Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence.
September 16, 2025
Naranjo-Aguilar was convicted of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute under 21 USC §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A) for driving a car containing almost 50 pounds of methamphetamine. At sentencing, Naranjo-Aguilar requested a downward adjustment from the US Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) based on USSG § 3B1.2(b), which allows a downward variance when the defendant plays a minor role in the crime. Naranjo-Aguilar alleged that he was a minor player as a courier in a drug deal, and he submitted a proffer identifying three other participants. The court acknowledged the proffer but denied the downward adjustment.
On appeal, Naranjo-Aguilar argued that the district court legally erred by not applying the downward adjustment as a minor participant. He based his argument on the district court’s statement that “Absent any knowledge or evidence to the contrary, the Defendant was acting alone when transporting a large quantity of drugs in the Eastern District of Oklahoma,” maintaining that this statement shows that the district court disregarded his proffer and limited its inquiry to participants who acted inside the judicial district. Because Naranjo-Aguilar didn’t preserve his arguments in district court, the Tenth Circuit reviewed for plain error. Under § 3B1.2(b), a district court can reduce the guideline range when the defendant is a minor participant, but a defendant’s participation can be considered minor only where most other participants bear greater culpability. Here, while the district court didn’t have to explain its reasoning, it had referred to the proffer earlier in its explanation, so the court was apparently aware of the proffer when stating that there wasn’t evidence of other participants. Naranjo-Aguilar’s characterization of the wording thus suggests an ambiguity, so the Tenth Circuit presumed from the explanation that the court considered the defendant’s proffer. It thus resolved the ambiguities by presuming that the district court intended the meaning that would have been legally correct, which here means that the court simply acknowledged that Naranjo-Aguilar was the only participant conducting activities in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Further, even if Naranjo-Aguilar had shown a legal error, he failed to show prejudice because it was reasonable for the district court to treat Naranjo-Aguilar’s culpability as roughly equivalent to that of the other participants in the crime.
Naranjo-Aguilar also argued that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Procedurally, he asserted that the district court failed to consider the avoidance of unwarranted sentencing disparities under § 3553(a)(6). However, though this factor wasn’t explicitly discussed, the district court referred to the USSG as a benchmark for an appropriate sentence, so the court inherently considered unwarranted sentencing disparities. As to the substantive reasonableness, Naranjo-Aguilar again raised sentencing disparities, citing the national average for sentences involving the same offense level and criminal history category, and criticisms of the guidelines’ reliance on drug weights and purity. While the district court had discretion to vary downward based on the national average or criticisms of the guidelines’ reliance on drug weights and purity, the court also had discretion to sentence Naranjo-Aguilar to the bottom of the guideline range. Here, the court considered the guideline range as a benchmark for similarly situated defendants and chose a sentence at the floor of that range. The sentence fell within the USSG range, so the court didn’t abuse its discretion by imposing a 235-month sentence.
The sentence was affirmed.