## Facts

- Cheryl A. Hunte accompanied her boyfriend, Joseph Richards, and others on a cross-country trip that resulted in obtaining marijuana in Arizona and transporting it toward New York.
- Richards arranged the trip and supplied a minivan; an associate agreed to help drive in exchange for a portion of the marijuana to resell for profit.
- In Tucson, the marijuana was loaded into the minivan; while others weighed the drugs, Hunte remained nearby in the residence.
- Hunte closed blinds during the Arizona stop and helped roll marijuana into a joint that the group smoked.
- On the return trip, the minivan carried the marijuana while Hunte and Richards followed in another vehicle; Hunte drove the following car when both vehicles were stopped in Illinois and the marijuana was discovered.
- Hunte and three co-defendants were charged with conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana under federal law; the three men pleaded guilty and testified against her.
- A jury convicted Hunte; the district court imposed 33 months’ imprisonment, supervised release, and a fine, and denied a mitigating-role reduction under USSG § 3B1.2.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Hunte knowingly joined the drug conspiracy and possessed marijuana with intent to distribute.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred by denying Hunte a mitigating-role reduction under USSG § 3B1.2 as a minimal or minor participant.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Hunte’s convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute.
- The court held the evidence permitted an inference that Hunte knew the trip’s purpose and voluntarily assisted the criminal venture through acts that facilitated concealment and logistics.
- The court vacated the sentence in part and remanded for resentencing, holding the district court clearly erred in refusing any mitigating-role reduction under USSG § 3B1.2.
- The court directed the district court to determine and apply the appropriate reduction (at least minor, and possibly minimal) based on relative culpability.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction is supported on appellate review if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational jury could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- In a drug conspiracy, a defendant’s knowing participation may be inferred from sustained association with conspirators and affirmative acts that aid concealment or execution, even if the defendant did not organize the scheme or handle drugs extensively.
- USSG § 3B1.2 requires a mitigating-role reduction when a defendant is substantially less culpable than the average participant; liability for the offense does not preclude reduced culpability for sentencing.
- A district court commits clear error when it fails to account for obvious disparities in decision-making authority, expected financial benefit, and functional role among co-participants when applying § 3B1.2.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Hunte’s drug convictions because the record supported an inference of knowing assistance in the venture, but it required resentencing because her limited, non-decision-making role and lack of profit made denial of any mitigating-role reduction under USSG § 3B1.2 clear error.


United States v. Hunte, 196 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 1999)