United States v. Cantu-Ramirez
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2382
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Conspiracy involved 16 individuals trafficking marijuana and cocaine from Mexico to the U.S.
- Cantu-Ramirez and Grimaldo were major figures; Raul Ramírez was sentenced with co-defendants
- Raul’s statements were admitted in redacted form with limiting instructions to the jury
- Grimaldo challenged severance, suppression of his confession, and sentencing calculations
- District court sentenced Cantu-Ramirez and Grimaldo to 360 months, Raul to 121 months; Grimaldo appealed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance waiver and joinder effectiveness | Grimaldo argues severance should have been granted | Grimaldo contends failure to sever violated fair trial rights | Grimaldo waived severance; appeal affirmed |
| Voluntariness of Grimaldo's confession under Rule 5/3501 | Grimaldo contends delay to interrogate violated McNabb-Mallory and 3501 | Government argues six-hour window and voluntary waiver | Confession admissible; delay within six hours and voluntariness supported |
| Drug quantity and leadership role attribution for Grimaldo | PSR quantities and leadership enhancement supported sentencing | Grimaldo challenges accuracy of PSR and leadership finding | District court’s findings not clearly erroneous; leadership enhancement and quantity sustained |
| Section 3553(a) explanation for variance | Guidelines sentence challenged as insufficient explanation | Lacked explicit articulation of reasons for sentence | Plain error not reversible because within-Guidelines; not shown to affect substantial rights |
| Confrontation Clause issue from redacted co-defendant's confession | Raul's redacted confession admitted; Cantu-Ramirez argues violation | Redaction preserved enough to avoid Confrontation Clause violation | No Confrontation Clause violation; limiting instruction upheld; admission withstands harmless error review |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (redacted co-defendant confession permissible with limiting instruction)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (U.S. 2009) (modified McNabb-Mallory via 3501; six-hour window applicable)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1998) (redaction may impermissibly signal deletions to jury)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (explanation required when nonfrivolous arguments for variance are raised)
- Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (required explanation for non-Guidelines departures; within-Guidelines context evaluated for impact)
- Bustamante-Saenz, 963 F.2d 48 (5th Cir. 1992) (delay consideration in totality of circumstances for voluntariness)
- Perez-Bustamante, 963 F.2d 48 (5th Cir. 1992) (interrogation timing and voluntariness considerations)
- United States v. Seale, 600 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2010) (voluntariness standard under Corley framework)