USA v. Leonard M. Green

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11686
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEONARD M. GREEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cr-00005-HES-LLL-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11686 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 02/29/2024 Page: 1 of 8

-- 1 of 8 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11686
Before W ILSON , R OSENBAUM, and G RANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Leonard Green appeals his 180-month
imprisonment sentence for possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine and possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the district
court’s sentence.
I.
In May 2021, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents
in California learned of an attempt by a Mexican drug-trafficking
organization to distribute methamphetamine in Florida. Under-
cover HSI agents mailed a parcel containing 2.3167 kilograms of
methamphetamine—as well as a transmitter to alert agents when
the package was opened—to Green’s residence in Jacksonville,
Florida. HSI obtained an anticipatory search warrant for Green’s
residence and observed an undercover United States Postal Inspec-
tion Service investigator deliver the parcel to his address. After
watching Green bring the parcel inside and being alerted via the
transmitter that it had been opened, agents entered the residence
and executed the search warrant.1 Green admitted during the
search that he knew a parcel containing controlled substances
would arrive at his house that week, and that a man named Ronald
1 When the agents entered the home, Green kicked the package under his bed.
A 9mm handgun was found next to his bed.
USCA11 Case: 23-11686 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 02/29/2024 Page: 2 of 8

-- 2 of 8 --

23-11686 Opinion of the Court 3
Thomas, Jr., who goes by Tony, would later retrieve it and pay him
$500. Green explained that he routinely sold marijuana for Tony,
but he also knew Tony sold methamphetamine.
In January 2022, a grand jury indicted Green for possession
with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance contain-
ing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (Count I), and possession of a fire-
arm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(2) (Count II). Green subsequently pled guilty to both
counts, and the district court accepted his guilty pleas.
In determining his recommended sentencing guidelines,
Green’s probation officer grouped Counts I and II together pursu-
ant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c). The probation officer prepared a
presentence investigation report (PSI) which considered the
amount of methamphetamine in the parcel, as well as Green’s pos-
session of a firearm, his acceptance of responsibility, and his crimi-
nal history. The resulting guideline range was 235–293 months’
imprisonment, to which Green objected, advocating for a sentence
of 120 months. As relevant to this appeal, Green argued in a sen-
tencing memorandum that his involvement in the methampheta-
mine trafficking scheme was minimal, as he neither transported a
controlled substance nor exercised decision-making authority, and
only minimally benefitted from the criminal activity. At the sen-
tencing hearing, the district court stated that it had reviewed the
PSI and sentencing memorandum and heard Green’s reasserted ar-
gument that he qualified for a minimal or minor participant
USCA11 Case: 23-11686 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 02/29/2024 Page: 3 of 8

-- 3 of 8 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11686
reduction. The government responded that Green did not play a
minimal or minor role. But for his residence being used as a “drop
off”—a “safe place” to hold drugs until Tony was able to pick them
up—the methamphetamine would have never made it to Florida.
And while Green primarily dealt marijuana, he knew Tony “dealt
heavily in the methamphetamine game as well,” indicating he
knew there was a possibility he could receive other drugs.
The court overruled Green’s objections and adopted the un-
disputed facts and guideline applications in the PSI, ultimately sen-
tencing Green to a 180-month sentence to run concurrent to his
preexisting state sentence. Green timely appealed. He argues that
his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court
declined to grant him a mitigating-role reduction.
II.
We review the district court’s determination that Green did
not qualify for a mitigating-role reduction for clear error. United
States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 939 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). The
district court has “considerable discretion in making this fact-inten-
sive determination,” United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274, 1277–78
(11th Cir. 2002), and we will not disturb its findings unless “left with
a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,”
United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th Cir. 2016)
(quotations omitted).
III.
“The sentence imposed for a particular offense is based upon
the applicable sentencing offense levels set forth in Chapter Two
USCA11 Case: 23-11686 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 02/29/2024 Page: 4 of 8

-- 4 of 8 --

23-11686 Opinion of the Court 5
(Offense Conduct) of the Sentencing Guidelines.” De Varon, 175
F.3d at 938–39; see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The guidelines provide that “a
defendant may receive a two to four level reduction in his base of-
fense level where his role in the offense can be described as mini-
mal or minor.” De Varon, 175 F.3d at 939 (cleaned up);
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The defendant “bears the burden of proving a
mitigating role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence.”
De Varon, 175 F.3d at 939.
In determining whether the defendant played a minimal or
minor role in the criminal scheme, the district court conducts a
two-part inquiry. Id. at 940–45. First, it looks to “the defendant’s
role in the relevant conduct for which he has been held accountable
at sentencing,” and then to “his role as compared to that of other
participants in his relevant conduct.” United States v. Cabezas-Mon-
tano, 949 F.3d 567, 606 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotations omitted and al-
teration adopted). To assist courts in this determination, the Sen-
tencing Guidelines provide a non-exhaustive list of factors, includ-
ing:
(i) the degree to which the defendant understood the
scope and structure of the criminal activity;
(ii) the degree to which the defendant participated in
planning or organizing the criminal activity;
(iii) the degree to which the defendant exercised deci-
sion-making authority or influenced the exercise of
decision-making authority;
USCA11 Case: 23-11686 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 02/29/2024 Page: 5 of 8

-- 5 of 8 --

6 Opinion of the Court 23-11686
(iv) the nature and extent of the defendant's participa-
tion in the commission of the criminal activity, in-
cluding the acts the defendant performed and the re-
sponsibility and discretion the defendant had in per-
forming those acts;
(v) the degree to which the defendant stood to benefit
from the criminal activity.
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C).
A district court “must consider all of [the § 3B1.2] factors to
the extent applicable, and it commits legal error in making a minor
role decision based solely on one factor.” United States v. Valois, 915
F.3d 717, 732 (11th Cir. 2019) (internal quotations omitted). But in
making this determination, “the sentencing judge has no duty to
make any specific subsidiary factual findings.” De Varon, 175 F.3d
at 939. “So long as the district court’s decision is supported by the
record and the court clearly resolves any disputed factual issues, a
simple statement of the district court’s conclusion is sufficient.” Id.
(emphasis omitted).
IV.
The district court’s determination that Green did not play a
minimal or minor role in the methamphetamine distribution
scheme was not clearly erroneous. While the court did not explain
its reasoning for declining to award him a mitigating-role adjust-
ment, it was not required to make specific factual determinations
beyond its ultimate conclusion, as the decision was clearly
USCA11 Case: 23-11686 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 02/29/2024 Page: 6 of 8

-- 6 of 8 --

23-11686 Opinion of the Court 7
supported by the record and there were no factual issues in dispute.
De Varon, 175 F.3d at 939–40.
First, we consider Green’s role in the crime. The uncon-
tested PSI indicates that he knowingly received over two kilograms
of methamphetamine—and he was held accountable only for that
conduct, not any marijuana he received or sold prior to this inci-
dent. Green had received packages of marijuana for Tony on nu-
merous occasions, and stated that he was aware Tony also sold
methamphetamine. The record demonstrates that the probation
officer and the district court used this information as probative ev-
idence of Green’s knowledge, culpability, and role in Tony’s crim-
inal enterprise and the instant methamphetamine scheme. See
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). Moreover, Green was the only per-
son responsible for receiving these drugs. While Green’s perfor-
mance of an “indispensable role in the criminal activity is not deter-
minative,” id. (emphasis added), his role in safely storing multiple
shipments of drugs indicates he was not a minimal or minor partic-
ipant in the trafficking scheme. Additionally, Green received $500
for retrieving the package on Tony’s behalf, showing he stood to
gain at least some pecuniary benefit from the transaction. See id.
Turning now to Green’s role compared to that of other par-
ticipants. The government identified three participants in the crim-
inal activity: (1) the sender, (2) Green, and (3) Tony. Green failed
to introduce sufficient evidence comparing his role to the sender
and Tony, and therefore did not meet his burden that his role was
minor or minimal compared to theirs. And while the record
USCA11 Case: 23-11686 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 02/29/2024 Page: 7 of 8

-- 7 of 8 --

8 Opinion of the Court 23-11686
demonstrates that he played a lesser role than Tony, this does not
automatically entitle him to a role reduction, as “it is possible that
[no participants] are minor or minimal.” United States v. Martin, 803
F.3d 581, 591 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotations omitted). While Green’s
role in the trafficking scheme was less involved than that of others,
it was involved enough to make him more than a minor or minimal
participant.
V.
For the reasons given above, the district court did not err in
denying Green a mitigating-role reduction.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-11686 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 02/29/2024 Page: 8 of 8

-- 8 of 8 --