Clarifying Mitigating Role Reductions and Substantive Reasonableness in Drug Sentencing: United States v. Colorado-Castillo

Introduction

This commentary examines the Second Circuit’s summary order in United States v. Colorado-Castillo, No. 24-1669 (2d Cir. Apr. 16, 2025). The defendant, Erick De Jesus Colorado-Castillo, pleaded guilty under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. At sentencing, the district court denied a minor—or mitigating—role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 and imposed a 70-month term of imprisonment (the low end of the Guidelines range) plus three years of supervised release. On appeal, Colorado-Castillo challenged (1) the denial of the § 3B1.2 adjustment and (2) the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed both aspects of the district court’s decision:

Mitigating Role Adjustment: Applying clear-error review, the court held that the district court did not clearly err in concluding, based on text messages and other evidence, that Colorado-Castillo’s understanding of the drug scheme, his anticipated benefit, and his active participation precluded a minor-role finding.
Substantive Reasonableness: The court observed that a within-Guidelines sentence—especially at the low end—ordinarily falls within the broad range of permissible outcomes and does not warrant reversal absent “shockingly” unreasonable circumstances, which were not present here.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

United States v. Wynn, 108 F.4th 73 (2d Cir. 2024) (“Wynn II”): Established that challenges to the factual findings underlying a mitigating-role determination are reviewed for clear error and reiterated the “relative role” framework under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.
United States v. Salim, 549 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2008): Emphasized that when two permissible views of the evidence exist, the factfinder’s choice cannot be clearly erroneous.
United States v. Shonubi, 998 F.2d 84 (2d Cir. 1993): Articulated the core considerations for a mitigating-role reduction: nature of the relationship among participants, the defendant’s importance to the venture, and his awareness of the enterprise’s scope.
United States v. Osuba, 67 F.4th 56 (2d Cir. 2023): Defined clear error as the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
United States v. Ortiz, 100 F.4th 112 (2d Cir. 2024) and United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015): Clarified the narrow circumstances under which a within-Guidelines sentence may be vacated as substantively unreasonable.
United States v. Ryan, 806 F.3d 691 (2d Cir. 2015): Recognized that Guidelines sentences typically fall “comfortably within the broad range of sentences that would be reasonable.”

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis followed two main strands:

Mitigating Role (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2):
- The district court assessed whether Colorado-Castillo’s role was minor relative to co-conspirators. It considered text messages showing his detailed knowledge, negotiations for payment, and reference to expanding the operation, concluding he was more than a “one-time courier.”
- By citing the Guidelines commentary factors—understanding of scope, planning involvement, decision-making authority, extent of participation, and personal benefit—the court demonstrated a factbound inquiry. Even though the district court did not discuss every factor aloud, it need not recite each one verbatim so long as the record shows a reasoned evaluation.
- Under clear-error review, the panel found no basis for second-guessing the district court’s resolution of conflicting inferences.
Substantive Reasonableness:
- Colorado-Castillo’s 70-month term was at the bottom of a properly calculated 70–87-month Guidelines range.
- The court reiterated that only “exceptional cases” featuring sentences that are “shockingly high” or “otherwise unsupportable” fall outside the broad deference accorded to within-Guidelines outcomes.
- Finding no extraordinary circumstances, the panel held the sentence substantively reasonable.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces several enduring principles:

District courts retain broad discretion in weighing § 3B1.2 factors. Appellate reversal requires a clear error, not mere disagreement with factual inferences.
Guidelines-range sentences—especially at the low end—are presumptively reasonable, deterring frequent appellate challenges to within-range outcomes.
Practitioners must marshal concrete evidence of marginal participation (e.g., courier-only roles with limited knowledge or autonomy) to secure mitigating-role credits.
Summary orders in the Second Circuit, while non-precedential, still illustrate how key sentencing principles are applied in practice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Clear Error Standard: An appellate court defers to the trial court’s factual findings unless it “has the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Mitigating Role Adjustment (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2): A sentence credit for defendants whose part in an offense was substantially lesser than that of typical participants.
Substantive Reasonableness: A holistic review of the final sentence’s fairness, assessed within the context of the Guidelines range and statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Summary Order: A shorter opinion that resolves the case without creating binding precedent, though still informative of the court’s approach.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit in United States v. Colorado-Castillo reaffirmed the high threshold for upsetting a district court’s denial of a mitigating-role adjustment and underscored the deferential standard applied to within-Guidelines sentences. By mapping the § 3B1.2 factors onto the record evidence and upholding a low-end Guidelines term, the court provided clear guidance: defendants seeking minor-role credit must demonstrate a genuinely peripheral involvement, and appeals of ordinary within-range sentences will rarely prevail. This decision thus bolsters sentencing stability while clarifying the procedural rigor required for mitigating role reductions.