Clarification of Mitigating-Role Adjustments Under U.S.S.G. §3B1.2: Comparative Analysis of Defendants’ Culpability

Introduction

United States v. Migdalia Matos Estrella, decided by the Sixth Circuit on April 18, 2025 (No. 24-3265), addresses the proper application of the mitigating-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 in a multi-defendant drug-trafficking conspiracy. The appellant, Matos Estrella, had been convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess cocaine, unlawfully possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, and using a communication device to facilitate drug trafficking. At sentencing she sought a role-reduction adjustment, arguing she was “substantially less culpable” than her co-conspirators. The district court denied relief, finding she played an integral operational role. On appeal, Matos Estrella contended that the court failed to apply § 3B1.2’s factors correctly and did not define “average participant.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that (1) the district court did not clearly err in weighing the guideline’s non-exhaustive factors, and (2) it adequately compared her conduct to that of her co-participants rather than to an abstract baseline.

Summary of the Judgment

The panel, in an opinion by Judge Ritz, began by restating the standard for a mitigating-role adjustment: a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was “substantially less culpable than the average participant” in the offense. The court reviewed § 3B1.2 and its commentary, observed that Matos Estrella admitted knowing that packages delivered to her home contained cocaine, and noted that she accepted nearly half of the conspiracy’s twenty-two shipments and held both drugs and proceeds for her son. Under clear-error review, the court found the district court properly considered Matos Estrella’s knowledge, participation, authority, and benefit from the conspiracy. The panel rejected her arguments that the court failed to enumerate each factor or define “average participant,” concluding that the record—as reflected in the sentencing transcript and the presentence report—provided a sufficient factual and comparative basis. The Sixth Circuit therefore affirmed the denial of a § 3B1.2 adjustment and the below-guidelines 31-month sentence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Guerrero, 76 F.4th 519 (6th Cir. 2023): Holds that the defendant bears the burden of proof by a preponderance to obtain a § 3B1.2 adjustment.
United States v. Daneshvar, 925 F.3d 766 (6th Cir. 2019): Affirms that denials of role adjustments are reviewed for clear error.
United States v. Estrada-Gonzalez, 32 F.4th 607 (6th Cir. 2022): Clarifies the deference owed to district court findings under clear-error review.
United States v. Wilson, 802 F. App’x 976 (6th Cir. 2020): Explains that “average participant” is measured against co-participants in the same scheme, not a broader universe.
United States v. Bragg, 762 F. App’x 298 (6th Cir. 2019): Holds that explicit recitation of every commentary factor is not required so long as the record shows the court understood and applied the law.
Additional authorities on role adjustments and comparative culpability: Miller, Sheafe, Romero, Taylor, Macias Martinez, Bucio, Mosley, and Petrus.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning centered on § 3B1.2 and its conduct-based factors: (i) knowledge of scope and structure, (ii) planning or organizing, (iii) decision-making authority, (iv) nature and extent of participation, and (v) benefit from the crime. Here Matos Estrella: (1) used coded language in wiretaps; (2) knew her husband and son discussed quality control; (3) accepted nine of twenty-two shipments—more than any other conspirator; (4) stored both cocaine and cash; and (5) received financial compensation. These facts, the Sixth Circuit held, are consistent with a participant whose culpability was on par with or exceeded the average conspirator. The district court’s on-the-record findings were “very, very compelling,” and under the deferential clear-error standard, the panel refused to second-guess that assessment.

Impact

This decision reinforces three key principles for future sentencing proceedings in the Sixth Circuit and beyond:

Sentencing courts need not mechanically enumerate each § 3B1.2 factor so long as the record demonstrates familiarity with the guideline and factual engagement.
“Average participant” comparisons must be fact-specific and confined to coconspirators in the same scheme rather than abstract cohorts.
Deferential clear-error review will sustain district court denials of mitigating-role adjustments when the defendant’s responsibilities and benefits align with or exceed those of typical participants.

Practitioners should ensure that any plea or sentencing memorandum for a role reduction clearly illustrates relative innocence or marginal involvement by contrasting with higher-level operatives, and should preserve record references to each § 3B1.2 factor.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mitigating-Role Adjustment (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2): A downward modification of offense level when a defendant’s role is “substantially less culpable” than that of an average participant.
Average Participant: Under Amendment 794, this is measured against other individuals who actually participated in the same conspiracy.
Clear-Error Review: A highly deferential appellate standard; an unambiguous mistake in the district court’s factual findings is required to overturn.
Preponderance of the Evidence: The burden on a defendant to show that it is more likely than not that she qualifies for a role adjustment.
Offense Level & Criminal-History Category: Inputs into the Sentencing Table; the total offense level here was 21, Criminal-History Category I, resulting in a guidelines range of 37–46 months.

Conclusion

United States v. Matos Estrella provides a clear roadmap for § 3B1.2 role-reduction claims. Sentencing courts in the Sixth Circuit must compare a defendant’s actual conduct against that of her codefendants, weigh the guideline’s illustrative factors in context, and apply deferential review. Absent a manifest misapplication of those factors or a miscomputation of comparative culpability, appellate courts will affirm denials of mitigating-role adjustments. This precedent thus preserves sentencing discretion while ensuring consistency and predictability in the treatment of peripheral versus central participants in criminal enterprises.