United States v. Davila-Lopez
692 F. App'x 9
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Davila-Lopez pleaded guilty to two counts: conspiracy to import cocaine and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine stemming from a 2005–2010 yacht-based smuggling operation.
- He transported drugs on at least two trips (~860 kg total), built hidden compartments in vessels, and stored drugs/proceeds at his residence.
- PSR computed Base Offense Level 38 (≥150 kg), three-level acceptance reduction, TOL 35, Criminal History I → GSR 168–210 months.
- Defense sought a two-level minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b); district court denied it.
- Court granted a safety-valve reduction, yielding TOL 33 and GSR 135–168 months; sentenced to 135 months (bottom of range).
- After appeal, amended Guidelines (amend. 782) would lower the range to 108–135; district court (while appeal pending) granted a § 3582(c)(2) reduction to 108 months but lacked jurisdiction to do so; the grant was vacated and remanded for proper consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying a minor-role (§ 3B1.2) reduction | Government: defendant’s role was significant based on transportation, engineering of compartments, and storage | Davila-Lopez: he was a mere transporter/mechanic with no leadership or negotiation role; thus minor participant | Affirmed: district court’s denial not clearly erroneous given his substantial contributions and trust by conspirators |
| Whether 135-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Government: sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range and sufficiently considered § 3553(a) factors | Davila-Lopez: court undervalued mitigating factors (minor role, wife’s cancer) and should have varied downward | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; weighed mitigation and imposed bottom-of-range sentence |
| Whether district court could grant § 3582(c)(2) reduction while appeal pending | N/A | Parties jointly asked for 108-month reduction based on retroactive Guidelines amendment | District court lacked jurisdiction while appeal pending; its grant is vacated; remanded for proper consideration under Dillon and § 1B1.10 |
Key Cases Cited
- Meléndez-Rivera v. United States, 782 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2015) (defendant bears burden to prove minor-role reduction by preponderance; clear-error review)
- García-Ortiz v. United States, 657 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2011) (greater culpability of others does not automatically make defendant minor)
- Vargas v. United States, 560 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (courier role alone does not guarantee minor-role reduction)
- Santos v. United States, 357 F.3d 136 (1st Cir. 2004) (couriers not automatically entitled to mitigating role adjustment)
- Ruiz-Huertas v. United States, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir. 2015) (standard of review for substantive-reasonableness challenges)
- Llanos-Falero v. United States, 847 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2017) (sentences within Guidelines range are presumptively reasonable)
- Clogston v. United States, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (sentencing court has discretion in weighting § 3553(a) factors)
- Rodríguez-Milián v. United States, 820 F.3d 26 (1st Cir.) (district court lacks authority to grant § 3582(c)(2) reduction while appeal pending)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (when reducing sentence under a retroactive Guidelines amendment, court may substitute amended range but must leave other guideline determinations intact)