United States v. Montes-Fosse, 824 F.3d 168

Montes drove Soto to the location where Soto robbed a USPS mail carrier; Soto brandished a firearm during the robbery and fled with packages.
Montes admitted driving Soto there "for the purpose of committing that robbery" and later discussed police presence with Soto.
Montes pled guilty to aiding and abetting a robbery of a postal employee; Soto pled guilty to brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence.
The written plea agreement recommended Guidelines calculations including a 5-level weapons enhancement and a 2-level minor-role reduction; Montes reserved the right to contest the weapons enhancement.
At sentencing the district court applied the 5-level firearm enhancement and denied the 2-level minor-role reduction, resulting in a 51-month prison sentence (at bottom of the 51–63 mo. range).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2B3.1(b)(2)(C) 5-level enhancement (firearm brandished/possessed) applies	Gov: It was reasonably foreseeable to Montes that Soto would possess/brandish a gun because Soto carried the gun before and during the event	Montes: He lacked actual/advance knowledge of a gun and thus enhancement improper	Court: Enhancement proper — foreseeability (preponderance standard), no personal knowledge requirement; affirmed
Whether defendant qualifies for a 2-level minor-role reduction under §3B1.2(b)	Gov: Montes was sufficiently culpable—drove assailant to scene knowing the robbery purpose—so no minor-role reduction	Montes: He only drove Soto there and did not plan, arm, retrieve loot, or otherwise participate significantly	Court: Denial of reduction affirmed — driving accomplice to the scene with knowledge of the plan supports withholding minor-role adjustment

United States v. Lasseque, 806 F.3d 618 (1st Cir.) (foreseeability standard for weapon enhancements)
United States v. Vargas, 560 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (facts for plea-acceptance appeals and role-in-offense review)
United States v. Fermin, 771 F.3d 71 (1st Cir.) (foreseeability of weapons in certain offenses)
United States v. Spinney, 65 F.3d 231 (1st Cir.) (general foreseeability observation)
United States v. García-Ortiz, 657 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.) (more culpable accomplice does not make another’s role minor)
United States v. Dilorio, 948 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.) (role-in-offense findings upheld when reasonable inferences drawn from undisputed facts)
United States v. Meléndez-Rivera, 782 F.3d 26 (1st Cir.) (denial of minor-role reduction upheld where defendant was involved in planning/execution)
United States v. Ortiz-Santiago, 211 F.3d 146 (1st Cir.) (defendant bears burden to prove lesser culpability)
United States v. Santos, 357 F.3d 136 (1st Cir.) (no entitlement to minor-role reduction as of right)