United States v. Cristobal Cervantes
706 F.3d 603
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Milan, Cervantes, and Alvarez were convicted on six counts stemming from an ATF sting to rob a drug stash house.
- The stash house invasion was a sham; the targets were arrested the day the operation was to occur.
- An undercover ATF agent arranged meetings where the plan was described: stealing about 25 kilograms of cocaine with expected profit.
- The group was shown guns and armor; the operation involved three co-defendants plus a fourth co-defendant who did not appeal.
- Appellants appeal multiple issues; the district court’s only error, per the court, was applying an impermissible firearm-enhancement; Cervantes and Alvarez’s sentences are vacated and remanded for resentencing; convictions otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire partial closure validity | Alvarez, Cervantes claim partial closure violated public trial rights | Magistrate judge had substantial, documented reasons | Partial closure affirmed; substantial reasons supported |
| Entreatment questions during voir dire | Cervantes needed entrapment-specific questions to assess challenges | Judge’s general inquiry sufficed; no abuse | No abuse of discretion; entrapment inquiry not required |
| Comment on remaining silent during trial | Alvarez’s question about co-defendants’ silence tainted verdict | Judge promptly admonished and instructions protected fair trial | No reversible error; harmless |
| Admissibility of Rule 404(b) prior acts | Evidence of prior home invasion showed predisposition | Evidence prejudicial; limiting instructions insufficient | Evidence admissible with limiting instructions; not reversible error |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Alvarez’s charges | Insufficient proof of conspiracy and aiding and abetting the drug offense | Evidence showed Alvarez’s participation and shared criminal intent | Sufficient evidence; jury could reasonably convict |
| Firearm sentencing enhancement | Enhancement double-punished for same conduct | Criminal sentencing error; sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing | |
| Body armor sentencing enhancement | upheld; PSR reliable; no error identified | ||
| Ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal | Not ripe on direct appeal; denied without prejudice to collateral review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Osborne, 68 F.3d 94 (5th Cir. 1995) (partial closure analysis; safeguards of public trial)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (public trial guarantees in closure decisions)
- Aaron v. Capps, 507 F.2d 685 (5th Cir. 1975) (framework for partial-closure analysis)
- United States v. Rasco, 123 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 1997) (voir dire questions; broad discretion)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 993 F.2d 1170 (5th Cir. 1993) (scope of voir dire and challenges)
- United States v. Theagene, 565 F.3d 911 (5th Cir. 2009) (predisposition; entrapment burden shifting)
- United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (Rule 404(b) Brandenburg; balancing probative value vs. prejudice)
- United States v. Girod, 646 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2011) (establishing abuse of discretion in Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Morin, 627 F.3d 985 (5th Cir. 2010) (plain error review for unraised claims)