## Facts

- Dick’s Clothing and Sporting Goods (Dick’s) operated as a federally licensed firearms dealer.
- Marty Wise worked at Dick’s as a sales associate with access to the store’s firearms inventory and sales process.
- Wise recruited Donald P. Carpenter into a scheme to steal firearms from Dick’s and resell them for profit.
- Over roughly two and one-half years, beginning around September 1994, Wise and Carpenter carried out repeated thefts involving dozens of firearms.
- The scheme’s basic method was that Carpenter would come to the store during Wise’s shift; Wise would provide a firearm without collecting payment and would represent to others at the store that Carpenter was “all set,” allowing Carpenter to leave with the gun.
- Carpenter then resold the firearms and split the proceeds with Wise.
- The scheme ended after store personnel questioned Carpenter about a transaction lacking the expected paperwork; Carpenter admitted his conduct and identified Wise.
- Federal authorities investigated, and Carpenter was charged in federal court with conspiracy to steal firearms from a licensed firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 924(m).
- Carpenter pleaded guilty.
- At sentencing, the district court concluded Carpenter was less culpable than Wise and granted Carpenter a mitigating-role adjustment for being a “minor participant” under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, lowering Carpenter’s offense level and resulting in a lower advisory Guidelines range.
- The United States appealed, arguing the district court misapplied § 3B1.2 because Carpenter’s role in the two-person conspiracy was not minor within the meaning of the Guidelines.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in granting Carpenter a “minor participant” offense-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 in a two-person firearms-theft conspiracy where Carpenter played an essential, profit-sharing role.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held that the district court misapplied U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 by awarding Carpenter a minor-participant reduction.
- The court explained that a defendant is not entitled to a mitigating-role adjustment merely because he is less blameworthy than another participant; the inquiry is whether the defendant is substantially less culpable than the average participant in the criminal activity.
- Given Carpenter’s sustained involvement in the thefts and his direct role in taking possession of the guns and arranging their resale while sharing proceeds with Wise, Carpenter did not qualify as a minor participant under § 3B1.2.
- The court vacated Carpenter’s sentence and remanded with instructions to resentence without the minor-participant adjustment, specifying resentencing at offense level 15 and criminal history category I (18–24 months), or at offense level 14 and criminal history category I (15–21 months) if the district court awarded an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b).

## Legal Principles

- A mitigating-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 is not available simply because the defendant played a lesser role than a co-conspirator; the defendant must be substantially less culpable than the average participant in the criminal activity.
- In a two-person conspiracy, a defendant who performs indispensable functions in carrying out and profiting from the offense generally will not qualify as a “minor participant” under § 3B1.2.
- When a sentencing court applies an incorrect legal standard under the Sentencing Guidelines, the court of appeals may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with the proper Guidelines analysis, including providing specific resentencing instructions where appropriate.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit vacated Carpenter’s sentence because the district court wrongly treated his comparatively lesser blameworthiness than Wise as enough to warrant a minor-participant reduction; under § 3B1.2, Carpenter’s sustained, necessary role in a two-person firearms-theft conspiracy made the reduction unavailable, requiring resentencing without it.


United States v. Carpenter, 252 F.3d 230 (2001)