United States v. Bianca Bello-Sanchez, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18490

Bello‑Sanchez was arrested crossing from Mexico into the U.S. with a concealed package of methamphetamine and admitted knowledge that it contained narcotics; she was a paid courier.
She pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute >50 grams of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting.
PSR set offense level 34 (+2 importation, -3 acceptance = 33), reduced to 31 under the safety‑valve, yielding a 108–135 month guideline range.
PSR and its addendum declined a § 3B1.2 mitigating‑role adjustment, stating couriers can be indispensable and are not automatically entitled to reduction.
At sentencing Bello‑Sanchez argued she lacked proprietary interest, had limited knowledge of the organization, and was merely paid to perform a task; the district court overruled her objection, finding her role essential, adopted the PSR (with safety‑valve change), and sentenced her below the guideline range to 60 months.
She appealed, arguing the denial of a mitigating‑role adjustment was clearly erroneous and that the court impermissibly treated her essential role as a per se bar to § 3B1.2 relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a § 3B1.2 mitigating‑role adjustment was clearly erroneous	Bello‑Sanchez: she was substantially less culpable than average participant and met the commentary factors (no proprietary interest; limited knowledge; paid courier)	Gov't: courier role is indispensable; facts show she understood scope, was paid, and performed the relevant acts	Affirmed — district court's finding that she was not minor/minimal was plausible in light of the record and not clearly erroneous
Whether the district court treated the defendant's essential/indispensable role as a per se bar to § 3B1.2 relief	Bello‑Sanchez: court relied on "essential" role as outcome‑determinative, contrary to Amendment 794 commentary	Gov't: court properly considered essential role as an important factor among others	Affirmed — court weighed essentiality heavily but did not apply it as a per se rule; no remand required
Whether remand was required for failure to articulate consideration of § 3B1.2 commentary factors	Bello‑Sanchez: court failed to expressly apply/write findings on commentary factors; thus remand or explanation required	Gov't: court was not required to state each factor on the record and defense counsel raised the appropriate arguments	Denied — court need not recite each factor; defendant did not request explicit factual articulation as required under Melton

United States v. Gomez‑Valle, 828 F.3d 324 (5th Cir.) (standards for reviewing § 3B1.2 findings)
United States v. Castro, 843 F.3d 608 (5th Cir.) (district court may weigh an integral role as a factor without creating a per se rule)
United States v. Torres‑Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.) (affirming denial of mitigating‑role adjustment where factors mixed; court not required to recite each factor on the record)
United States v. Escobar, 866 F.3d 333 (5th Cir.) (post‑Amendment 794 guidance on weighing essential roles)
United States v. Sanchez‑Villarreal, 857 F.3d 714 (5th Cir.) (vacatur where district court’s language treated critical role as outcome‑determinative pre‑Amendment 794)
United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193 (5th Cir.) (clear‑error review: factual findings upheld if plausible in light of the record)
United States v. Melton, 930 F.2d 1096 (5th Cir.) (requirement to articulate factual basis when defendant requests explanation for denying role reduction)