United States v. Cesar Rodriguez-Castro
668 F. App'x 554
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Cesar Rodriguez-Castro pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine (500 g substance / 50 g actual). No plea agreement; he signed a statement of agreed facts describing his role collecting drug-sale proceeds and wiring them to persons in Mexico.
- The PSR attributed to him involvement in distribution of 7.1 kg methamphetamine and collection of $35,600 in drug proceeds he intended to wire to Mexico.
- The district court denied his request for a mitigating-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 but granted safety-valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(17) / § 5C1.2, producing a guidelines range of 87–108 months (down from 120–135).
- He was sentenced within the reduced guidelines to 108 months’ imprisonment and five years supervised release.
- On appeal Rodriguez-Castro challenged procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence and argued he merited a minor-role (two-level) adjustment; he also raised 3553(a) and safety-valve related claims for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court failed to consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors (procedural error) | Rodriguez-Castro says court did not adequately consider §3553(a) factors | Government says issue was not properly preserved/briefed on appeal | Waived for inadequate briefing; no review |
| Whether Rodriguez-Castro is entitled to a 3- or 4-level mitigating-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. §3B1.2 | He argued for lesser role generally | Government opposed; court denied at sentencing and defendant abandoned challenges to 3/4 levels | Abandoned at sentencing; appellate review of 3/4-level denial is waived and court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether Rodriguez-Castro is entitled to a 2-level minor-role adjustment under §3B1.2(b) | He contends his role was minor and merits two-level reduction | PSR attributed substantial proceeds collection and intended wiring; government says participation not minor | No clear error in denying two-level adjustment; collection/transfer of large drug proceeds is not minor |
| Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable (including complaint about safety-valve effect) | He contends court failed to consider his life, lack of criminal history, cooperation, and that safety-valve benefit was undermined | Government points to PSR and that safety-valve already lowered range from 120–135 to 87–108; within-guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable | Affirmed: defendant failed to rebut presumption; no substantive error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Green, 964 F.2d 365 (procedural-issue forfeiture for inadequate briefing)
- United States v. Conn, 657 F.3d 280 (waiver of appellate review for issues abandoned at sentencing)
- United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193 (standard for clear procedural sentencing error)
- United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787 (reliability and adoption of PSR factual findings absent objection)
- United States v. Silva-De Hoyos, 702 F.3d 843 (role in conspiracy: transporter not necessarily minor)
- United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593 (accountability for conduct coextensive with sentencing exposure)
- United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390 (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (standards for substantive-unreasonableness review)