United States v. Silvano Acosta

996 F.2d 1228 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Silvano ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-50462. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 10, 1993. * Decided June 14, 1993. Before: KOZINSKI, SILER ** and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM *** 2 The district court understood what minor and minimal participants were; it just concluded Acosta was neither. ASER 13-14. Moreover, because the court found Acosta was "substantially employed in the conspiracy," ASER 13, it lacked authority to depart under United States v. Valdez-Gonzalez, 957 F.2d 643 (9th Cir.1992), which is available only to the lowest-level couriers. See also ASER 11-13 (Acosta's lawyer admits Acosta was more than minimally culpable). 3 The court also lacked authority to depart because of disparity in sentences among codefendants. Such departures are permissible only when the disparity is caused by the fact that some…