United States
v.
Dure
v.
Dure
98-1686.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Feb 12, 1999.
181 F.3d 81
Cited by 18 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant's request for an adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 (mitigating role in offense). On the facts before it, the district court reasonably concluded that the drug trafficking offense was a "joint venture" that "would not have occurred without [defendant's] participation." Even though defendant may have been less culpable than his joint venture partner, still defendant was not "less culpable than the average participant" in similar drug trafficking conspiracies, [*2] and so he was not entitled to any adjustment. See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 460 (1st Cir. 1994).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.