United States v. Edmundo Zuniga
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12700
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Zuniga pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. §1951), conspiracy to use/carry a firearm, and aiding/abetting a §924(c) offense; sentenced to 171 months (87 concurrent + 84 consecutive).
- PSR described a robbery of a home containing minors; one minor reported a robber trampled a 15-year-old causing arm pain; another minor reported a robber pointed a gun at an 8-year-old.
- PSR included co-conspirator statements that Zuniga recruited participants, appeared to direct the crew, provided a handgun to a cousin, and gave orders during the robbery.
- District court applied a two-level U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(c) management-role enhancement and a two-level §2B3.1(b)(3)(A) bodily-injury enhancement based on the PSR; government had agreed at sentencing that Zuniga was an average participant.
- Zuniga objected to both enhancements; the district court adopted the PSR and imposed the sentence. Zuniga appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3B1.1(c) management-role enhancement was supported | Zuniga: PSR facts uncorroborated; government agreed he was average participant | Govt: PSR bears sufficient indicia of reliability; co-conspirators’ consistent statements suffice; absence of rebuttal allows adoption | Affirmed — district court did not clearly err; PSR contained consistent, detailed co-conspirator statements and some corroboration |
| Whether §2B3.1(b)(3)(A) bodily-injury enhancement was supported | Zuniga: PSR lacks evidence of a significant/painful/obvious injury or medical treatment | Govt: Court may adopt PSR findings absent rebuttal | Reversed — vacated bodily-injury enhancement; PSR evidence was a bald, conclusionary statement insufficient to show a "painful and obvious" or significant injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 630 F.3d 377 (5th Cir.) (standard: de novo review of Guidelines interpretation; clear-error for factual findings)
- Harris v. United States, 702 F.3d 226 (5th Cir.) (PSR may be used if it bears sufficient indicia of reliability; bald conclusory statements are unreliable)
- Ollison v. United States, 555 F.3d 152 (5th Cir.) (defendant must rebut PSR facts showing material untruth to prevent adoption)
- Patterson v. United States, 962 F.2d 409 (5th Cir.) (district court erred where enhancement rested on unsworn prosecutorial assertion)
- Guerrero v. United States, 169 F.3d 933 (5th Cir.) (bodily-injury enhancement requires evidence of significant injury; mere violence without detail insufficient)
- Jefferson v. United States, 258 F.3d 405 (5th Cir.) (upheld bodily-injury enhancement where PSR contained detailed injury description and medical treatment)