United States v. Eduardo Najera
915 F.3d 997
5th Cir.2019Background
- Border Patrol agent observed Najera driving an SUV on a road commonly used for smuggling; the vehicle exhibited nervous/suspicious driving and pulled onto a gravel road where five passengers fled the vehicle. Najera remained in the driver’s seat and denied knowing the passengers.
- Najera was arrested and charged with conspiracy to transport and transporting undocumented immigrants (8 U.S.C. §1324). A material witness (Galvan) provided a videotaped deposition describing a dangerous river crossing organized by a guide (José) before Najera picked up the group at the highway.
- Najera moved to suppress evidence from the traffic stop (challenging reasonable suspicion); the district court held a suppression hearing and denied the motion. The Government refused Najera’s request for a conditional Rule 11(a)(2) plea, so the case proceeded to a bench trial where Najera preserved his suppression objection but otherwise did not contest facts; the court found him guilty.
- The PSR applied a two-level recidivist increase and a further enhancement under USSG §2L1.1(b)(6) for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury based on Galvan’s testimony about the river crossing. The PSR denied a two-level USSG §3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility (AOR) reduction because Najera contested the stop and proceeded to trial.
- The district court adopted the PSR, overruled Najera’s objections, and sentenced him within the Guidelines range to 48 months concurrent on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Najera’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USSG §2L1.1(b)(6) recklessness enhancement applies | Najera argued no co-conspirator created a substantial risk of death/injury; José’s actions mitigated risk | Government relied on Galvan’s testimony that José led the group into deep water, creating the risk; Najera is accountable for co-conspirators’ foreseeable acts | Affirmed — district court’s factual finding that José consciously disregarded a substantial risk was plausible and supports enhancement |
| Whether Najera is entitled to USSG §3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction despite proceeding to bench trial to preserve suppression appeal | Najera contended he did not deny factual guilt and only challenged legality of the stop; he sought conditional plea and otherwise conceded facts | Government treated trial conduct as contesting guilt and opposed AOR; emphasized that other cases declined AOR when defendants went to trial on stipulated facts | Vacated in part — court held Najera clearly demonstrated acceptance of responsibility; denial of AOR lacked foundation and sentence must be vacated/remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir.) (standard: Guidelines interpretation de novo; factual findings clear-error)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 630 F.3d 377 (5th Cir.) (factual findings not clearly erroneous if plausible in light of record)
- United States v. Mateo Garza, 541 F.3d 290 (5th Cir.) (look to specifics; avoid per se rules for risk findings)
- United States v. Solis-Garcia, 420 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.) (caselaw caution against per se rules)
- United States v. Washington, 340 F.3d 222 (5th Cir.) (protection for AOR when defendant challenges legality of police conduct rather than factual guilt)
- United States v. Garcia-Ruiz, 546 F.3d 716 (5th Cir.) (stipulations to facts can render suppression error harmless or constitute waiver; safety hatch if defendant expressly reserves suppression appeal when stipulating)
- United States v. Maldonado, 42 F.3d 906 (5th Cir.) (very deferential review of district court’s AOR denial; reversal only if decision is without foundation)
- United States v. Cordero, 465 F.3d 626 (5th Cir.) (AOR denial where defendant rejected conditional plea and trial posture suggested contesting facts)