United States v. Erasto Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370

Background

Erasto Gomez-Jimenez and Juarez-Gomez were convicted in the Eastern District of North Carolina; Erasto challenged firearm and minor enhancements, Juarez-Gomez challenged counts and enhancements.
Juarez-Gomez sold cocaine in multiple transactions to a confidential informant at Burger King and a grocery-store parking lot in Raleigh, driving a yellow truck with a GOMEZ plate.
A trailer associated with the conspiracy became the drug stash house; officers found large quantities of crack and powder cocaine, cash, and firearms there after a search.
A.G., Juarez-Gomez’s son, lived at the trailer; Juarez-Gomez’s lease and rent payments and A.G.’s residency were part of the factual basis for enhancements.
The PSRs attributed substantial drug quantities to each defendant, yielding high offense levels and guideline ranges, with enhancements for weapon, leadership, and use of a minor.
The district court sentenced Erasto to 180 months and Juarez-Gomez to concurrent 390-month terms on Counts One and Six, after finding involvement in a conspiracy and leadership/minor-role factors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy	Juarez-Gomez contends insufficient link to trailer conspiracy.	Gomez-Gomez argues no proof of residence or presence inside trailer tying him to conspiracy.	Evidence sufficient; jury could infer involvement from repeated visits and stash-house contents.
Use of a minor enhancement (3B1.4) for Juarez-Gomez	Juarez-Gomez asserts A.G.’s minimal participation cannot support enhancement.	Gomez-Gomez maintains presence and rental contributions are not affirmative acts involving a minor.	Court affirmed use of minor enhancement; acts including A.G.’s rent payments and living at the trailer supported the enhancement.
Leadership enhancement (3B1.1(c)) for Juarez-Gomez	Juarez-Gomez contends no proof he directed or supervised others.	Gomez-Gomez argues there was at least co-conspirator leadership through his son’s involvement.	Court affirmed leadership enhancement givenJuarez-Gomez’s role in leasing the trailer and directing A.G.’s involvement.
Possession of a dangerous weapon enhancement (2D1.1(b)(1)) for Erasto	Erasto challenges that firearms were not connected to him personally.	Erasto contends weapons were linked to a co-conspirator or merely present.	Court affirmed; weapons found in the residence were reasonably foreseeable fixtures of the conspiracy and linked to Erasto.
Harmless-error review of procedural sentencing errors	Erasto argues errors in guideline calculations were not harmless.	Juarez-Gomez argues the district court’s alternative sentence justification is insufficient for harmlessness.	Court applied assumed-error harmlessness, affirming sentences as substantively reasonable despite potential guideline errors.

Key Cases Cited

Savillon-Matute, 636 F.3d 119 (4th Cir. 2011) (harmless-error review for procedural sentencing errors)
Hargrove, 701 F.3d 156 (4th Cir. 2012) (assumed-error harmlessness framework applied to sentencing)
Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2006) (upholding within-Guidelines sentence where court would have imposed same sentence)
Mata, 624 F.3d 170 (5th Cir. 2010) (affirmative acts involving a minor extend beyond mere presence in some contexts)
Taber, 497 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirmative acts by a minor at a crime; involvement must be tied to offense)
Voegtlin, 437 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2006) (presence of a minor at a crime may support enhancement in some circumstances)
Montes-Flores, 736 F.3d 357 (4th Cir. 2013) (discussed harmlessness in the context of above-guidelines sentences)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (procedural sentencing errors subject to harmlessness review)
Zabielski, 711 F.3d 381 (3d Cir. 2013) (harmlessness review requires meaningful district-court explanation for variance)
Gomez-Jimenez, N/A (4th Cir. 2013) (contextual reference; not central to citation list)