United States v. Castillo
20-50807
| 5th Cir. | Jul 22, 2021Background
- Israel Castillo pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50+ grams of actual methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A).
- He received a within-Guidelines sentence including the statutory mandatory minimum 120-month term.
- Castillo sought a "safety-valve" reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), which requires, among other things, that the defendant truthfully provide all information concerning offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan (§ 3553(f)(5)).
- The district court denied the safety-valve, finding Castillo had not truthfully disclosed information about a planned additional sale (an alleged agreement to sell an extra seven pounds) and adopted the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) as containing reliable factual information.
- On appeal Castillo argued the court erred in denying the safety-valve and failed to articulate specific findings of untruthfulness; the Fifth Circuit reviewed preserved issues under the usual standards and unpreserved arguments for plain error.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the record (including the PSR) supported the denial and Castillo failed to show reversible plain error from any lack of express factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3553(f)(5) safety-valve applies | United States: Castillo did not truthfully provide all information about the same course of conduct (planned additional sale) | Castillo: He provided truthful information and is entitled to the safety-valve | Denial affirmed; record supports finding of untruthfulness and denial of adjustment |
| Whether the PSR could be used as the factual basis | United States: Adopted PSR bears sufficient indicia of reliability for sentencing findings | Castillo: PSR cannot be the sole basis to deny safety-valve (implied) | Court may rely on adopted PSR; it is sufficiently reliable for sentencing determinations |
| Whether the district court was required to make explicit findings of untruthfulness | United States: Factual basis in record obviates need for extended oral findings | Castillo: Court failed to articulate specific factual findings explaining denial | Argument forfeited below; plain-error review fails — no clear or obvious error shown |
| Standard of review for these claims | United States: Proper standards apply — Guidelines issues de novo, factual findings for clear error, unpreserved claims plain error | Castillo: (seeks reversal under applicable standards) | Fifth Circuit applied de novo/clear-error/plain-error standards and found no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (advisory Guidelines framework and procedural/substantive review standards)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for forfeited objections)
- United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750 (5th Cir. 2009) (review standards for sentencing challenges)
- United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of Guidelines application; clear error for factual findings)
- United States v. Miller, 179 F.3d 961 (5th Cir. 1999) (untruthfulness can justify denial of safety-valve reduction)
- United States v. Fitzgerald, 89 F.3d 218 (5th Cir. 1996) (PSRs generally bear sufficient indicia of reliability for sentencing factual determinations)
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (preservation and plain-error principles in sentencing contexts)