UNITED STATES v. MACIEL (2025)

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR MINIMAL PARTICIPANT ADJUSTMENT

Before the Court is Defendant Cristian Rene Maciel's request that the Court vary downward 6 levels in computing his guideline range based on the upcoming amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines due to Maciel being a minimal participant in the offense at issue. (ECF No. 70, at 6.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Maciel's request. The Court imposed the sentence on June 9, 2025, stating that it would issue a written decision explaining its reasoning in more detail.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 6, 2024, officers from the San Diego Police Department (“SDPD”) arrested Maciel in San Diego, CA, after conducting a traffic stop of a Nissan Sentra that Maciel was driving. (ECF No. 1, at 3.) The SDPD searched the Sentra, which resulted in the seizure of approximately 27 brick-shaped objects, which weighed approximately 31.19 kilograms and field-tested positive for fentanyl, and 20 oblong-shaped objects, which weighed approximately 10.4 kilograms and field-tested positive for methamphetamine. (Id.)

In his Sentencing Memorandum, Maciel proffered that he had “expected to be paid $700 for transporting a small brick of drugs,” and that he had been “given instructions to drive to an address.” (ECF No. 70, at 3.) Maciel “did not know what type of drugs he was supposed to be transporting” and “had no idea he would be transporting both methamphetamine and fentanyl.” (Id. at 4.) Maciel was then “surprised when he arrived [at the address] and there was a large quantity of drugs to be smuggled.” (Id. at 3.) However, Maciel “needed the money and did not feel like he could back out.” (Id.) At the sentencing hearing the Court held on June 9, 2025, the Government stated it did not dispute the facts provided in Maciel's Sentencing Memorandum.

Maciel pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess controlled substances with the intent to distribute (fentanyl and methamphetamine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) on February 20, 2025. (ECF Nos. 52, 54.) In his sentencing memorandums, Maciel requested, among other things, a total of a 6-level downward variance to take into account the upcoming amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that will become effective November 1, 2025. (ECF No. 79, at 9.) The Government did not object to Maciel being sentenced with a downward variance based on the upcoming amendments, but contended that the Court should vary downward only two levels to take into account the amendment to § 2D1.1(a)(5) based on Maciel being a minor participant rather than a minimal participant. (ECF No. 78, at 5–6.) The court held a sentencing hearing on May 15, 2025, during which the Court ordered the parties to submit additional briefing on their respective positions. (ECF No. 76.) After the parties submitted their supplemental briefs (see ECF Nos. 78, 79), the Court held an additional sentencing hearing on June 9, 2025, at which the Court sentenced Maciel to 20 months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and 3 years of supervised release. (ECF No. 82.) At the June 9 hearing, the Court granted Maciel's request for a 6-level downward variance under the upcoming amendments, and stated it would issue a written opinion fully explaining its reasoning for doing so.

II. DISCUSSION

On April 30, 2025, the United States Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress proposed amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. The amendments will take effect on November 1, 2025, if Congress does not block them. The amended § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B)’s special instructions expand the circumstances under which an adjustment under § 3B1.2 is warranted in drug offenses. The amended § 2D1.1(e)(2) provides:

(2) Application of § 3B1.2 (Mitigating Role) to § 2D1.1 Cases

(A) Determine whether an adjustment under § 3B1.2 (Mitigating Role) applies.

(B) In addition to the circumstances identified in § 3B1.2, an adjustment under § 3B1.2 is generally warranted if the defendant's primary function in the offense was performing a low-level trafficking function.

(i) An adjustment under § 3B1.2(a) is generally warranted if the defendant's primary function in the offense was plainly among the lowest level of drug trafficking functions, such as serving as a courier, running errands, sending or receiving phone calls or messages, or acting as a lookout; or

(ii) an adjustment under § 3B1.2(b) is generally warranted if the defendant's primary function in the offense was performing another low-level trafficking function, such as distributing controlled substances in user-level quantities for little or no monetary compensation or with a primary motivation other than profit (e.g., the defendant was otherwise unlikely to commit such an offense and was motivated by an intimate or familial relationship, or by threats or fear to commit the offense).

For purposes of subsection (e)(2)(B), the provisions of § 3B1.2 apply in determining whether a mitigating role adjustment is warranted, except that the adjustment shall apply regardless of whether the offense involved other participants in addition to the defendant, and regardless of whether the defendant was substantially less culpable than the average participant in the criminal activity. The extent of the adjustment shall be based on the totality of the circumstances and involves a determination that is heavily dependent upon the facts of the particular case.

(C) The mitigating role provisions at subsection (a)(5) and the 2-level reduction at subsection (b)(17) apply regardless of whether the defendant receives the required adjustment from § 3B1.2 (Mitigating Role) by direct application of § 3B1.2 or by use of the special instruction in subsection (e)(2)(B).

The amendment to the “role cap” base offense level of § 2D1.1(a)(5) provides:

(a) Base Offense Level (Apply the greatest):

․

(5) the offense level specified in the Drug Quantity Table set forth in subsection (c), except that if (A) the defendant receives an adjustment under § 3B1.2 (Mitigating Role); and (B) the base offense level under subsection (c) is (i) level 32, decrease by 2 levels; (ii) level 34, decrease by 3 levels; or (iii) above level 34, decrease to level 32. If the resulting offense level is greater than level 30 and the defendant receives the 4-level reduction in § 3B1.2(a), decrease to level 30.

Maciel argues he is entitled to a 4-level downward adjustment under the amended § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B)(i) and a “role cap” base offense level of 30 because he acted only as a drug courier, and thus his primary function in the offense was among the lowest level of drug trafficking functions and he was a minimal participant in the offense. (ECF No. 70, at 6–7.) This would give Maciel a base offense level of 30 and a downward adjustment of four levels under § 3B1.2(a). The Government contends that he should only receive a 2-level downward adjustment for minor role, which would give Maciel a base offense level of 32 under the amendments. (ECF No. 78, at 5–6.) Whether Maciel is entitled to an adjustment under § 3B1.2(a) and the special instruction in § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B) depends on if Maciel's primary function was as a “courier.”

A. Maciel Acted Only as a Courier

Maciel argues that a person who transports drugs, regardless of the amount of drugs that person is transporting, and regardless of whether that person is transporting drugs across the international border, is a courier, and so he therefore acted as a courier in this offense. (ECF No. 79, at 1–2.) In response, the Government argues that “whatever you call Defendant, his primary function of picking up approximately 30 kilograms of fentanyl and 10 kilograms of methamphetamine, with the intent to drive the dangerous drugs at least 60 miles north, including past a Border Patrol Checkpoint (Santa Clemente), was not plainly among the lowest level of drug trafficking functions.” (ECF No. 78, at 6.)¹

Neither the current nor the amended Sentencing Guidelines contain a definition of the word “courier.” The Court has therefore considered Ninth Circuit case law, transcripts of hearings the Sentencing Commission held regarding the upcoming amendments, and materials published by the Sentencing Commission to determine what it means to act as a “courier” within the meaning of § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B). The Court agrees with Maciel that a person whose only function is to transport drugs—regardless of the amount of drugs they are transporting and regardless of whether they are transporting drugs across an international border—is a “courier” in the context of the amended § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B)(i), and that Maciel acted only as a courier in this offense.

First, Ninth Circuit case law has referred to a defendant who transports drugs in a vehicle from one place to another, whether within the United States or across an international border, as a “courier.” See, e.g., United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065, 1067 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Hurtado was caught driving a truck loaded with cocaine across the border, for which he was paid $3,500․ Hurtado's argument is essentially this: Just as all children in Lake Wobegon are above average, all drug couriers are, by definition, below average and entitled to the minor role reduction.”) (emphases added); United States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911, 913, 917 (2018) (“[The defendant] was arrested on August 27, 2015, when crossing into the United States and charged with the importation of 10.68 kilograms of cocaine and 3.6 kilograms of heroin․ To the extent the district court's reasoning reflects reliance on courier conduct as dispositive of [defendant's] eligibility for a minor-role reduction, it was error.”) (emphases added).

Second, the Sentencing Commission held a public hearing regarding its proposed 2025 amendments on March 12, 2025. Participants who testified at the hearing assumed that a person who transported drugs from one place to another, whether within the United States or from Mexico into the United States, was a “courier” within the meaning of the proposed amendment to § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B)(i). For example, an Assistant United States Attorney in the Western District of Texas who opposed the proposed amendment to § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B) testified that in “my district a lot of the judges drop part below [sic] the guidelines, especially on meth, especially like when we're [sic] couriers into the country.” (Day One Transcript, Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (March 12, 2025), available at https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/public-hearings-and-meetings/2025031213/Transcript-Day1.pdf, at 45–46.) Similarly, a Federal Defender in the Southern District of Texas spoke about how he previously worked in the Western District of Texas, “where most drug cases were people who were coming on [sic] through the ports of entry, couriers, if you will.” (Id. at 18.) He testified that at his current job, his “clients are couriers or checkpoints and street level dealers. So I run the gamut from port of entry folks to checkpoint folks to street level folks.” (Id. at 18.) A criminal defense and civil rights attorney in Philadelphia testified that she has represented “courier[s] who did not have control over the quantity that they were bringing over the border.” (Id. at 65.) Finally, a Federal Defender in the District of Arizona described her district as a “courier district,” noting that it was common for defendants to describe their involvement in an offense by saying “I met someone at a bar, I only have a nickname for him. I don't know where he lives. He was in Mexico. I don't know where I was taking the drugs. I was going to get a call once I got through the border.” (Id. at 106.) The case law and testimony about drug couriers further indicates that the Sentencing Commission considers people whose sole function is to transport drugs from one place to another, regardless of the quantity of drugs and even if that person is transporting the drugs into the United States from Mexico, to be couriers and the intended beneficiaries of the amendment to § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B)(i).

Finally, a 2024 primer prepared by the Sentencing Commission's Office of the General Counsel regarding role adjustments further demonstrates that the Sentencing Commission believes defendants who transport drugs are couriers. The primer states that “couriers and mules ‘may receive’ an adjustment under § 3B1.2, even if they are held accountable for only for the drugs they personally transported.” (Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Primer on Aggravating and Mitigating Role Adjustments, at 18, (October 2024), available at https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/primers/2024_Primer_Role.pdf, at 18, (emphasis added).) The primer goes on to explain that “Courts tend to deny reductions for couriers and mules upon finding that the defendant was more than a ‘mere’ courier or mule because, for example, the defendant transported a significant quantity of drugs.” (Id. at 18–19 (emphases added).)

These authorities all suggest that someone who transported drugs, even if that person transported drugs across international borders and even if that person was transporting a large quantity of drugs, is a courier. Because only transporting drugs is precisely what Maciel's limited role was in this offense, the Court holds that he acted as a courier in the context of the amended § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B)(i).

B. An Adjustment under § 3B1.2(a) is Warranted

The Government also argues that even if the Court does find that Maciel was a courier and so his primary function in the offense was among the lowest level of drug-trafficking functions, “the plain text and the intentional inclusion of the term ‘generally’ [in the amended § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B)(i)] does not bind this Court to grant the four-level departure.” (ECF No. 78, at 6.) According to the Government, Maciel's “conduct of transporting a significant quantity of dangerous drugs, with the intent to drive the drugs north of San Clemente is enough to deny his request for a further variance.” (Id.) The Court disagrees, and finds that a variance under USSG § 3B1.2(a) is warranted in this case.

The Court does agree with the Government that the inclusion of the word “generally” in the amended § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B)(i) indicates that a sentencing court is not always required to give a courier defendant an adjustment under § 3B1.2(a). However, “generally” must mean that the Sentencing Commission intended for courts to apply the adjustment for most courier defendants. Moreover, the Government's argument does not take into account the policy considerations driving the Sentencing Commission's decision to amend § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B)(i). The purpose behind the amendment is for courts to more frequently apply adjustments under § 3B1.2(a) (minimal role) and grant defendants who are only couriers a 4-level reduction. (ECF No. 79, at 2.) In its written Reason for Amendment, the Commission states that it was concerned that a prior amendment to § 3B1.2—which was also intended “to increase [§ 3B1.2’s] usage”—“did not result in a sustained increase in application of the mitigating role adjustment in § 2D1.1 cases.” (U.S. Sentencing Commission, Official Text of Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (April 30, 2025), available at https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/official-text-amendments/202505_Amendments.pdf, at 8 (emphasis added).) Instead, the Commission's data showed that “when § 3B1.2 is applied in § 2D1.1 cases, the vast majority of these cases receive only a 2-level reduction; 3- and 4-level reductions are rarely applied.” (Id. at 8 (emphasis added).) The Commission therefore adopted the upcoming 2025 amendment in order to “expand[ ] the circumstances in which an adjustment under § 3B1.2 is applied in § 2D1.1 cases.” (Id. at 8 (emphasis added).) Indeed, the very text of the special instruction in § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B) provides that even if the defendant is not entitled to a mitigating role adjustment under § 3B1.2, they are still entitled to a minimal role adjustment if their “primary function” is one of those listed in § 2D1.1(e)(2)(B)(i), which includes a courier.

Although Maciel was transporting a large quantity of drugs, under the facts that the Government chose not to dispute, he had been misled about the true quantity of drugs he would be given and thought he would be transporting only one small package. He had no control over the quantity of drugs he would be transporting. He acted only and purely as a drug courier, and therefore a 4-level downward adjustment under §§ 3B1.2(a) and 2D1.1(e)(2)(B)(i) and a base level of 30 are warranted under the upcoming amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Defendant's request for a 6-level downward variance so as to take into account the amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’ §§ 2D1.1(a)(5) and 2D1.1(e)(2)(B) that will be effective on November 1, 2025.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Court notes that Maciel's Pre-Sentence Report states that “[t]he AUSA explained that MACIEL was a courier.” (ECF No. 60, at 5.) Regardless of whether this statement can be construed as the Government conceding that Maciel acted as a courier, the Court finds that Maciel was only a courier in this offense.

Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge