United States v. Dure

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.