United States v. Demi Muniz
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17917
5th Cir.2015Background
- Muniz and a co-conspirator transported illegal aliens from Houston to Los Angeles in a minivan; one passenger, Juan Jimenez Tovar, became visibly ill during the trip.
- Muniz knew Tovar was diabetic, appeared dehydrated, and that his wife had told her he needed a specific insulin and possibly medical attention; Muniz bought drinks but never sought emergency care.
- After passengers found Tovar unresponsive, Muniz left him at a highway rest stop about four miles from an ambulance service and in view of many medical facilities; she did not call 911 and later told Tovar’s wife he had been left at an exit.
- Forensic pathologist testified cause of death was lobar pneumonia with contributing diabetic ketoacidosis and that insulin and antibiotics likely could have improved survival.
- A jury convicted Muniz of conspiracy to transport and conceal illegal aliens and found she had placed Tovar’s life in jeopardy and that his death resulted from her conduct; district court applied two Guidelines enhancements and sentenced Muniz below the Guideline range to 85 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2L1.1(b)(6) 6‑level enhancement (creating substantial risk of death/serious injury) applies | Muniz: general transport not dangerous; she lacked notice of severity of Tovar’s illness | Government: Muniz knew Tovar was dehydrated, diabetic, alternately hot/cold, and needed insulin; abandoning him created substantial risk | Court affirmed: enhancement proper; findings not clearly erroneous and jury found life was jeopardized |
| Whether § 2L1.1(b)(7) 10‑level enhancement (causing death) applies | Muniz: her omissions were not a but‑for cause of death | Government: omissions can be but‑for cause; failure to obtain medical care caused death | Court affirmed: but‑for causation satisfied on this record; omissions can support enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nash, 729 F.3d 400 (5th Cir.) (standard of review: Guidelines interpretation de novo; factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Juarez, 626 F.3d 246 (5th Cir.) (sentencing enhancements proven by preponderance)
- United States v. Ramos-Delgado, 763 F.3d 398 (5th Cir.) (§ 2L1.1(b)(7) requires but‑for causation; omissions count)
- United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287 (5th Cir.) (district court may draw reasonable inferences as fact findings)
- United States v. Mateo Garza, 541 F.3d 290 (5th Cir.) (look to specifics of situation when applying § 2L1.1 enhancements)
- United States v. Ramos-Ramos, [citation="425 F. App'x 280"] (5th Cir.) (omissions during transport upheld enhancement under § 2L1.1)
- United States v. Anderson, 5 F.3d 795 (5th Cir.) (clarifying guideline commentary may be considered when interpretive only)