United States v. Claiborne
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6316
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Claiborne and Weldon were arrested after police found eight crack packages in a bag under a car and cocaine residue in the car; Claiborne claimed ownership of a Blackberry and Motorola phone, and the CI identified Weldon but not Claiborne; the CI arranged the drug purchase via the Motorola; Claiborne had substantial cash on arrest and admitted possession with Weldon to sell crack; the PSR increased offense level for obstructing justice due to an attempted escape; Claiborne argued for a minor-participant reduction under § 3B1.2, district court denied it, and sentenced Claiborne to 78 months in prison; Claiborne appealed.
- Claiborne admitted possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack and pled guilty without a plea agreement; the PSR calculated base level 28, +2 for obstruction, -3 for acceptance of responsibility, total level 27; with CH I, Guidelines range was 70–87 months; Claiborne challenged the minor-role adjustment and the obstruction enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claiborne qualified for a minor role reduction | Claiborne was less culpable than Weldon and peripheral to the scheme | Claiborne's involvement was not peripheral; facts show active participation | Denied; no substantial lesser culpability to warrant § 3B1.2(b) reduction |
| Whether the obstruction of justice enhancement was properly applied | Weldon primarily responsible for escape, Claiborne did not further it | District court erred in applying enhancement without proper objection | Affirmed despite lack of objection; district court factual finding sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (review of obstruction enhancement findings; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2005) (minor role analysis; substantial relative culpability standard)
- United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1991) (plain error review not available for unobjected-to sentencing factual findings)
- United States v. Pattan, 931 F.2d 1035 (5th Cir. 1991) (guideline adjustments evaluated in light of entire record under plain error standard)
- United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2005) (plain error review in unobjected guideline enhancements; factors for miscarriage of justice)
- United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2008) (non-Guideline sentence considerations and overlap of ranges)
- United States v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2007) (sentencing errors affecting fairness and integrity)