United States v. Nkome, 987 F.3d 1262

Defendant Gladys Nkome participated as a U.S.-based "money mule" in an international advance-fee (online purchase) fraud run from Cameroon; over ~13 months she used at least 35 false identities to collect about $357,078.74 and forwarded ~70–80% overseas.
Co-defendant Roderich Nkarakwi performed broader functions (many more false identities, communications with Cameroon, helped obtain false IDs) and retained a similar mule cut while otherwise playing more roles.
Nkome pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud; the PSR attributed loss to her individual conduct and denied a § 3B1.2 mitigating-role adjustment, treating her as an "average participant."
At sentencing the district court applied the five non‑exhaustive factors in U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (knowledge/scope, planning, decision‑making, nature/extent of participation, benefit) and concluded Nkome was not substantially less culpable than the average participant; it denied the adjustment and sentenced her to 21 months.
On appeal Nkome argued (1) legal error: the court failed to compare her culpability to other participants as required post‑Amendment 794, and (2) clear factual error: the court’s finding that she fell into an amorphous middle tier was implausible. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Nkome)	Defendant's Argument (Government / Court)	Held
Whether the district court legally erred by failing to compare Nkome’s culpability to other participants when assessing § 3B1.2 eligibility	The court examined the § 3B1.2 factors in isolation and did not perform the required comparative analysis with participants in the same criminal activity	The court did make comparative inquiries (e.g., compared Nkome to codefendant and to the conspiracy’s leaders) and Bowen permits limited on‑record detail; court is presumed to know and apply the law	No legal error: court’s explanation and comparisons satisfied the requirement; de novo review not warranted
Whether the district court’s factual finding (that Nkome was not substantially less culpable than the average participant) was clearly erroneous	Nkome was only a money mule with limited discretion, lower in culpability than organizers, forgers, and regional coordinators; thus she met preponderance burden for a mitigating role	Record showed repeated, long‑running participation, a significant personal share (20–30%) of proceeds, and close connection to a more knowing cooperator; factual findings plausible under clear‑error review	No clear error: the district court’s totality‑of‑circumstances judgment was permissible and affirmed

United States v. Yurek, 925 F.3d 423 (10th Cir. 2019) (relative culpability is crux of § 3B1.2 and legal error results where court applies wrong test)
United States v. Bowen, 437 F.3d 1009 (10th Cir. 2006) (district courts need not make detailed findings when denying guideline adjustments)
United States v. Delgado-Lopez, 974 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2020) (denial of mitigating-role adjustment is a factual determination reviewed for clear error; legal errors reviewed de novo)
United States v. Martinez, 512 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2008) (courier/mule status alone does not automatically entitle defendant to § 3B1.2 reduction)
United States v. Salas, 756 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2014) (defendant bears preponderance burden to prove entitlement to § 3B1.2 adjustment)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (Guidelines commentary authoritative unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent)
United States v. Hill, 563 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2009) (remand where record leaves doubt whether sentencing court applied appropriate § 3B1.2 factors)