United States v. Armelinda Castillo
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2919
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Castillo, a credit-union employee, pleaded guilty to embezzling bank funds under 18 U.S.C. § 656; the PSR attributed $690,000 in loss, producing a 14-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H).
- The PSR recommended a 2‑level § 3E1.1(a) acceptance reduction and noted the government would move for the additional 1‑level § 3E1.1(b) reduction; the government adopted the PSR but later declined to move for the extra level at sentencing.
- At sentencing Castillo contested the $690,000 loss figure and presented witnesses; the district court found the $690,000 loss by a preponderance and denied the § 3E1.1(b) reduction, agreeing with the government that Castillo had not fully accepted responsibility.
- Amendment 775 (2013) clarified that the government should not withhold a § 3E1.1(b) motion based on interests not identified in § 3E1.1 (e.g., refusal to waive appeal); this Court applied Amendment 775 in Palacios while Castillo’s appeal was pending.
- The appeals court considered whether the government may rely on § 3E1.1(a) interests to withhold a § 3E1.1(b) motion and whether a defendant’s post‑plea, sentencing challenge to PSR facts is a permissible ground to withhold the motion.
- Because factual credibility (whether Castillo’s challenge was made in good faith) was central and the appellate court is not the fact-finder, the Fifth Circuit vacated Castillo’s sentence and remanded for the district court to determine in the first instance whether her challenge to the loss amount was made in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government may rely on interests in § 3E1.1(a) when refusing to move under § 3E1.1(b) | Castillo: Gov’t may only rely on interests in § 3E1.1(b) (per Tello); denial based on post‑plea sentencing objections is improper | Government: Amendment 775 allows reliance on interests identified anywhere in § 3E1.1, including (a) | Court: Government may rely on interests identified in § 3E1.1 generally (including (a)) when deciding whether to move under (b) |
| Whether a defendant’s post‑plea, sentencing challenge to PSR loss can justify withholding § 3E1.1(b) motion | Castillo: A good‑faith challenge to PSR facts is impermissible basis for withholding the motion; § 3E1.1(b) focuses on avoiding trial prep | Government: Contesting loss consumed resources and evidenced lack of complete acceptance, so withholding was proper | Court: If the objection is made in good faith, withholding is impermissible; but if not made in good faith, withholding is permitted — remand for district court factfinding on good faith |
| Whether a good‑faith requirement governs sentencing objections for § 3E1.1(b) purposes | Castillo: No good‑faith test should be required; post‑plea objections do not defeat (b) if plea was timely (aligning with Tello/Divens/Lee) | Government: Good faith is relevant because lack of good faith bears on acceptance under (a) | Court: Adopts approach requiring district‑court determination whether the challenge was made in good faith; consequence follows from (a)/(b) interplay and precedent cited in Amendment 775 |
| Whether denial was harmless error when district court agreed with government | Government: Even if refusal to move erred, district court would not have granted reduction, so error is harmless | Castillo: Error not harmless because no record evidence shows court would have imposed same sentence absent error | Court: Error is not harmless; government failed to show district court would have imposed same sentence; vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tello, 9 F.3d 1119 (5th Cir. 1993) (post‑plea sentencing objection held not a proper basis to deny § 3E1.1(b) under prior commentary)
- United States v. Divens, 650 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 2011) (§ 3E1.1(b) focuses on timely plea and avoiding trial preparation; refusal to waive appeal not a valid basis to withhold motion)
- United States v. Lee, 653 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2011) (applying Divens to hold government may not withhold § 3E1.1(b) motion because defendant requested evidentiary hearing on PSR findings)
- United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2008) (prior standard: review of government refusal to move limited to unconstitutional motive or lack of legitimate government end)
- United States v. Palacios, 756 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (applied Amendment 775 and held government cannot withhold § 3E1.1(b) for refusal to waive appeal)
- United States v. Ibarra‑Luna, 628 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2010) (harmless‑error standard for sentencing errors; proponent must show district court would have imposed same sentence absent error)