“Only if the defendant can establish that [he] played a relatively minor role in the conduct for which [he] has already been held accountable— not a minor role in any larger criminal conspiracy — should the district court grant a downward adjustment for minor role in the offense.”
How later courts described this case
- “Only if the defendant can establish that [he] played a relatively minor role in the conduct for which [he] has already been held accountable— not a minor role in any larger criminal conspiracy — should the district court grant a downward adjustment for minor role in the offense.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 15-10874 Date Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10874
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20996-UU-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NIDAL BADAWI,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 21, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10874 Date Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Nidal Badawi appeals his 29-month sentence, imposed after he pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to commit food stamp fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371. He says the
district court clearly erred when it denied him a minor-role reduction, United States
Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.2(b). We affirm.
Whether a defendant qualifies for a minor-role reduction is a finding of fact
that we review for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d
930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). The defendant bears the burden of
establishing a minor role by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 934.
A participant with a minor role is one who is “less culpable than most other
participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” § 3B1.2(b), cmt.
n.5. District courts must measure a defendant’s role in relation to the “relevant
conduct” attributed to him—that is, “the conduct for which []he has been held
accountable under USSG § 1B1.3.” De Varon, 175 F.3d at 934 (citation
reformatted).
District courts may also measure a defendant’s role by comparing his
conduct to that of other participants in the same criminal scheme. But “a defendant
is not automatically entitled to a minor role adjustment merely because []he was
somewhat less culpable than the other discernable participants. Rather, the district
court must determine that the defendant was less culpable than most other
2
Case: 15-10874 Date Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 3 of 4
participants in [his] relevant conduct.” De Varon, 175 F.3d at 944 (emphasis
omitted).
Badawi first argues he played a minor role because out of the scheme’s
overall losses of about $2.2 million only 8% were attributable to him. 1 But the
government explained at sentencing that it was able to track only about $1 million
in losses, and Badawi was responsible for cashing nearly $200,000 of that figure.
Considering Badawi was responsible for approximately 20% of the identifiable
losses, the district court did not clearly err in denying the reduction. See id. (“Only
if the defendant can establish that [he] played a relatively minor role in the conduct
for which [he] has already been held accountable—not a minor role in any larger
criminal conspiracy—should the district court grant a downward adjustment for
minor role in the offense.”).
Badawi also argues that he was entitled to the minor-role reduction because
he was less culpable than four of his six codefendants. But at sentencing the
government indicated that Badawi was the “highest grossing cashier” involved in
the scheme. And his involvement spanned the entirety of the two-year conspiracy.
Even if Badawi was one of the least culpable conspirators, it was within the district
court’s discretion to deny the minor-role reduction. See United States v. Zaccardi,
1
To the extent that Badawi argues the district court erred by attributing to him the entire
amount of the scheme’s losses, his argument fails. See United States v. Dabbs, 134 F.3d 1071,
1082 (11th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he district court may hold all participants in a conspiracy responsible
for the losses resulting from the reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators in furtherance of
the conspiracy.”).
3
Case: 15-10874 Date Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 4 of 4
924 F.2d 201, 203 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (“Although the [presentence
investigation report] indicated that [the defendant] was one of the ‘least culpable’
defendants, the district court was not obliged on that basis to determine that
appellant was a ‘minor’ participant for the purposes of § 3B1.2 of the sentencing
guidelines.”).
In sum, based on the facts presented in the PSR and at sentencing the district
court explicitly characterized Badawi’s participation in the conspiracy as
“extensive” rather than “isolated”—“so much involvement” that it was not proper
to award a minor-role reduction. We cannot say that determination was clearly
erroneous.
AFFIRMED.
4