United States v. Melendez-Rivera, 782 F.3d 26

Julio Meléndez-Rivera pleaded guilty to conspiracy to import and distribute over 5 kg of cocaine after participating in a controlled-delivery scheme in Puerto Rico where he drove a van he believed contained cocaine.
PSI recommended a guidelines range of 188–235 months; the district court sentenced him to 188 months (bottom of range).
Meléndez sought a two-level minor-role reduction under USSG §3B1.2(b) and a three-level acceptance reduction (two levels under §3E1.1(a) plus an additional one level under §3E1.1(b)).
The district court denied the minor-role adjustment and granted the basic two-level acceptance reduction but refused to grant the extra one-level §3E1.1(b) reduction, stating it could do so only if the government filed a motion.
On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed denial of the minor-role adjustment but held the district court erred as a matter of law by concluding it lacked any authority to grant the §3E1.1(b) one-level reduction absent a government motion and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Meléndez's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Meléndez was entitled to a minor-role reduction under USSG §3B1.2(b)	He was a minor participant compared with co-conspirators; entitled to two-level reduction	He participated in planning, delivered the van, and drove it away—not minor	Denied; district court’s factual finding that he was not a minor participant was not clearly erroneous
Whether a district court can grant the additional one-level §3E1.1(b) acceptance reduction without a government motion when the government refuses to move	Court may review and grant the extra level if government withheld motion for improper or irrational reasons	The additional §3E1.1(b) reduction is available only upon motion of the government; court lacks authority to grant it absent such a motion	Reversed as to this legal conclusion; district court erred by treating government motion as absolute bar. Court may inquire whether government withheld motion for unconstitutional or irrational reasons and, if so, grant the reduction

United States v. Beatty, 538 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.) (district court may review government’s refusal to move for §3E1.1(b) when refusal is unconstitutional or irrational)
Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (Sup. Ct.) (court may review government withholding of motions under analogous §5K1.1 doctrine)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (Sup. Ct.) (treatment of guideline commentary in law)
United States v. Vargas, 560 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (procedure for deriving facts after guilty plea)
United States v. Quiñones-Medina, 553 F.3d 19 (1st Cir.) (standard of review for role-in-offense adjustments)