Does a defendant have the sole obligation in the establishment of these elements or does the trial judge have a duty to inquire into them?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Diego Palacios-Villalon (Palacios) made a written objection to the Presentence Report (PSR) for not being granted a reduction under §3B1.2 (Mitigating Role). At sentencing, Palacios advocated for the §3B1.2 reduction by stating that Palacios is an 18 years old, he was a student, he was recruited to transport narcotics from Mexico to the United States. He was working under the directions of another individual and was paid $600. On appeal, Palacios argued that the trial court had erred by denying the application of the mitigating role guideline adjustment provided by §3B1.2. The Fifth Circuit held that Palacios had not satisfied his burden to establish his entitlement to a mitigating role reduction because he failed to show the level of culpability of the average participant in the offense, establish his own relative level of culpability, or otherwise demonstrate that he did so much less than other participants that he was peripheral to the criminal activity’s advancement. The question presented is “does a defendant have the sole obligation in the establishment of these elements or does the trial judge have a duty to inquire into them’.