United States v. Armando Amieva-Rodriguez
874 F.3d 898
5th Cir.2017Background
- Amieva–Rodriguez, an undocumented Mexican national, pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute >50 kg of marijuana after being apprehended crossing the Rio Grande with ~101.4 kg nearby.
- He admitted he agreed to smuggle the drugs for $200 and helped construct a makeshift raft used in the crossing.
- The PSR calculated a total offense level of 21 (Guidelines range 37–46 months) and recommended no mitigating-role reduction, finding him an active, knowing, willing participant.
- At sentencing Amieva–Rodriguez argued he was a minor participant (citing proposed Amendment 794) and that guides forced him to carry; the Government argued he knowingly participated and expected payment.
- The district court adopted the PSR, declined to apply a §3B1.2 minor-role reduction, and sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
- The Fifth Circuit considered whether the appeal was moot (it was not) and reviewed de novo whether the district court applied Amendment 794 and for clear error the factual role finding.
Issues
| Issue | Amieva–Rodriguez's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal is moot after defendant’s release | Release moots sentence challenge | Supervised release remains modifiable; appeal not moot | Not moot — supervised release could be affected on remand |
| Whether district court considered Amendment 794 when denying §3B1.2 reduction | District court failed to consider or apply Amendment 794 | Court relied on PSR and parties’ arguments that tracked amendment factors | Court considered Amendment 794 (de novo review) |
| Whether Amieva–Rodriguez proved he was a minor participant under §3B1.2 | He was a mere carrier, forced by guides, meriting a 2-level reduction | He was a knowing, willing participant who materially contributed and expected payment | Denied — factual finding that he was more-than-minor was plausible and not clearly erroneous |
| Proper application of Amendment 794 factors | Amendment favors couriers; clarifying amendment applies retroactively | Amendment clarifies factors but does not entitle couriers to reductions; indispensability not dispositive | Amendment is clarifying and considered, but record supports denial of reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2016) (upheld denial of minor-role reduction for transporter of large marijuana quantity)
- United States v. Gomez–Valle, 828 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2016) (discussed §3B1.2 interpretation and limits on role reductions)
- United States v. Sanchez–Villarreal, 857 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2017) (held Amendment 794 is clarifying and may be considered retroactively)
- United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001) (standard for reviewing district court’s factual findings re: role reductions)
- United States v. Lares–Meraz, 452 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2006) (mootness and continued jurisdiction over supervised-release modifications)