United States v. Venancio Covarrubias, 678 F. App'x 415

Venancio Covarrubias pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 135 months (within Guidelines range).
DEA wiretap and investigation showed Covarrubias received multiple tomato shipments from a fictitious Mexican company (“Tadeo Produce”) and laundered drug proceeds.
A semi-trailer bound for his Elgin, IL warehouse was seized in Laredo, TX containing 159 kg of cocaine; Covarrubias admitted receiving seven shipments (60 kg each) though only the first 60-kg delivery was specified in the plea as relevant conduct.
Covarrubias helped create a fake business, leased a warehouse, acted as a point of contact for drivers, picked up and deposited narcotics proceeds, wired funds to Mexico, and kept about $1,000 per pickup; he handled over $200,000 and wired at least $115,321.
At sentencing he sought a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, arguing he was a minor, short-term, directed participant who handled only a small share of the overall operation.
The district court denied the reduction, finding Covarrubias a “crucial” front man who knowingly continued trafficking after learning of cocaine shipments and who participated in laundering and concealing proceeds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Covarrubias qualifies for a § 3B1.2 minor-role reduction	Gov: district court correctly denied reduction based on totality of conduct	Covarrubias: he was a minor, directed by superiors, handled little cocaine and only laundered small amounts	Denial affirmed: court not clearly erroneous — he played a crucial, non-minor role
Whether sentencing court had to explicitly compare defendant to average conspirator	Gov: implicit comparison suffices; court considered totality	Covarrubias: court failed to adequately compare his culpability to others	Affirmed: explicit comparison not required if record shows implicit comparison
Whether the 159 kg seized in Laredo should be excluded from role analysis	Covarrubias: that seizure wasn’t his actual conduct and should be disregarded for § 3B1.2	Gov: relevant conduct under § 1B1.3 includes those shipments; plea admitted responsibility for 219 kg	Denied: relevant conduct includes the Laredo seizure; plea and conduct bind defendant
Whether being a courier/limited actor automatically supports a minor-role reduction	Gov: being a courier or less involved does not automatically qualify	Covarrubias: limited duties made him less culpable	Affirmed: essential components (even couriers or limited actors) may be ineligible for reduction

United States v. Orlando, 819 F.3d 1016 (7th Cir. 2016) (burden to show clear error in denial of minor-role reduction)
United States v. Sandoval-Velazco, 736 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2013) (explicit comparison to average conspirator not required if implicit comparison is evident)
United States v. Leiskunas, 656 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2011) (sentencing court best positioned to assess role; appellate reversal rare)
United States v. McKee, 389 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2004) (other members’ greater involvement does not automatically entitle reduction)
United States v. Rodriguez-Cardenas, 362 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2004) (couriers may be non-minor participants due to importance to distribution)
United States v. Panaigua-Verdugo, 537 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2008) (courier who participated in multiple transactions held not minor)
United States v. Hill, 563 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2009) (role determination must consider all relevant conduct under § 1B1.3)
United States v. Ramsey, 237 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2001) (introductory comment to Chapter 3, Part B requires consideration of relevant conduct)
United States v. Castillo, 148 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 1998) (essential-component analysis for conspirators)

AFFIRMED.