United States v. Estevan Ochoa-Gomez
777 F.3d 278
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Defendant Estevan Ochoa–Gomez participated in a multi-week drug operation transporting crystal meth from Mexico to the U.S.; he began participating after initial transactions and negotiated and delivered drugs with co-defendant Cabrera.
- PSR: Defendant wrapped, stored, negotiated for, and delivered ~15.4 kg of meth; he and Cabrera jointly owned ~8 kg and Defendant helped obtain funds to pay transporters.
- Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500+ grams of meth under 21 U.S.C. § 841; base offense level 38 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.
- Probation recommended a four-level aggravating-role increase under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a); district court applied a two-level increase under § 3B1.1(c) instead, finding he exercised an aggravating role (manager/supervisor/organizer/leader not specified).
- Without the two-level adjustment Guideline range would be 210–262 months; with it total offense level 39 and range 262–327 months; district court imposed 262 months.
- Defendant appealed, arguing clear error in the role enhancement; Fifth Circuit reviewed factual finding for clear error and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3B1.1(c) two-level enhancement was warranted | Gov: PSR and agent testimony show Defendant exercised management responsibility (assets/activities), justifying enhancement even absent direct supervision of others | Ochoa–Gomez: Record lacks evidence he led, managed, supervised other participants; enhancement thus erroneous | Affirmed: Record plausibly supports finding he exercised management responsibility over property/assets/activities, so § 3B1.1(c) increase not clearly erroneous |
| Standard of review for role finding | N/A | N/A | Factual finding reviewed for clear error; PSR is reliable basis |
| Whether management-of-assets theory can support an adjustment (versus requiring departure) | Gov: Circuit precedent (Delgado) allows adjustment based on management responsibility over property/activities | Ochoa–Gomez: Application Note 2 text requires control over at least one other participant; management-of-assets should warrant only an upward departure | Court applied Delgado and followed precedent allowing adjustment based on asset/activity management; concurrence notes tension and urges en banc review |
| Scope of evidence sufficient for § 3B1.1(c) | Gov: duties like storing, wrapping, negotiating, delivering, and providing jointly owned narcotics show integral management role | Ochoa–Gomez: Such tasks are not equivalent to supervising participants | Held: These tasks were plausibly management responsibilities; adjustment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. en banc 2012) (holds adjustment under § 3B1.1 may be applied when defendant exercised management responsibility over property/assets/activities)
- United States v. St. Junius, 739 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2013) (applied Delgado to affirm § 3B1.1 enhancement based on organizational responsibilities)
- United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2014) (reiterates that en banc precedent binds subsequent panels)
- United States v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560 (5th Cir. 2006) (factual findings for role adjustments reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Jobe, 101 F.3d 1046 (5th Cir. 1996) (earlier precedent suggesting asset-management alone supports departure, not adjustment; discussed in concurrence)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (district courts must consult the Sentencing Guidelines; sentencing decisions reviewed for reasonableness)