United States v. Christopher Ritter
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Defendants Christopher S. Ritter and Tracer K. Chovanak separately appeal sentences imposed following guilty pleas. We affirm.
We affirm the district court’s decision to deny Ritter a mitigating role reduction. We review a district court’s factual determination of whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant in the criminal activity for clear error. United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir.2006). A minimal or minor participant adjustment under section 3B1.2 is available only if the defendant was substantially less culpable than his or her co-participants. Id. at 1283 . Substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding that Ritter was not a minor or minimal participant, as he was at least as involved as Chovanak. As detailed in the presentenc-ing report, to which the district court expressly referred, the drug amount attributed to Ritter did not include what was found in Moran’s possession, so her activity was not a proper comparison. Simply because someone else was the source of the drugs did not mean Ritter was a “minor player.” See United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir.2010).