Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that a defendant's claim for a minor or mitigating role downward adjustment under the Sentencing Guidelines is not reviewable on appeal for plain error

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioner, JOSE ARMANDO BAZAN, was charged with and pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. The District Court imposed a sentence of 24 months. On direct appeal, Mr. Bazan argued he should have received a minor or mitigating role downward adjustment under the Guidelines. Mr. Bazan agreed review was for plain error. The Government responded that this claim was not reviewable on appeal because the issue of minor/mitigating role is a fact question. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed, stating that “[b]ecause this issue was a question of fact capable of resolution at sentencing, the issue can never constitute plain error.” The ruling of the Fifth Circuit directly affirmed the Government’s position that there was to be “no review” of this claim as the Government had advocated. With respect to any factual findings by the District Court, those facts must not change when the issues change, contrary to the Government's advocacy to the contrary. Finally, the : action by the Fifth Circuit reflects that the Appellate Court did not apply the plain error standard of review, as required by this Court. Critically, Mr. Bazan’s request was for resentencing withy the adjustment. Hence, the Fifth Circuit has decided an important federal question ina way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. A compelling reason is thus presented in support of discretionary review. Mr. Bazan therefore respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant this Petition and allow this case to proceed to resentencing with a reduction for minor/minimal party status. -i|