United States v. Edwin Aguilar-Ibarra
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1133
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Aguilar-Ibarra participated in a pre-dawn warehouse robbery with three others; victims were bound and assaulted and over $500,000 in phones were stolen.
- The PSR stated a warehouse employee sustained "minor injuries" and was taken to the hospital.
- PSR applied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(3)(A) bodily-injury enhancement, producing a guidelines range of 70–87 months; Aguilar-Ibarra did not file written objections within the Rule 32(f)(1) 14-day period.
- At sentencing defense counsel orally disputed the enhancement but acknowledged uncertainty about the victim’s injuries; the government acknowledged no serious injury but did not dispute that the victim suffered minor injuries.
- The district court overruled Aguilar-Ibarra’s objection as untimely and without merit, adopted the PSR, and imposed an 87-month sentence; Aguilar-Ibarra did not preserve the objection for plenary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aguilar-Ibarra) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f)(1) | Rule 32(f) inapplicable because parties agreed enhancement should not apply; court could/should waive time limit | Rule 32(f)(1) requires written objections within 14 days; district did not waive untimeliness | Overruled as untimely; defendant failed to show cause; district did not abuse discretion |
| Application of § 2B3.1(b)(3)(A) bodily-injury enhancement | No evidence of bodily injury; PSR’s reference to "minor injuries" insufficient and unsupported | Defendant admitted PSR statements by not objecting specifically; court may rely on undisputed PSR facts to find bodily injury | Plain-error review: no plain error. Enhancement affirmed based on undisputed PSR facts |
| Standard of review for unpreserved objection | N/A (argues merits) | Unpreserved → plain-error review applies | Plain-error standard governs and defendant cannot meet burden |
| Reliance on PSR where factual detail is limited | PSR’s lack of specific injury description defeats enhancement | Failure to object renders PSR allegations admitted; court may infer bodily injury from assault + hospital visit | Admission of PSR statements permitted; enhancement not plainly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gibson, 434 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2006) (district court must correctly calculate the Guidelines range)
- United States v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 628 (11th Cir. 1998) (court not bound by parties’ sentencing recommendations)
- United States v. Milian-Rodriguez, 828 F.2d 679 (11th Cir. 1987) (denying relief where district court rejected claim as untimely and also on the merits does not excuse untimeliness)
- United States v. Parrish, 427 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2005) (issues not timely raised in district court reviewed for plain error)
- United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 2009) (failure to specifically object to PSI statements deems them admitted and permits reliance)
- United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878 (11th Cir. 2009) (government must prove disputed sentencing facts by a preponderance)
- United States v. Schmitz, 634 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2011) (plain error requires the error be plain under controlling precedent or clear statute)