United States v. Eugenio Munoz-Canellas
695 F. App'x 748
5th Cir.2017Background
- Munoz-Canellas pleaded guilty to impersonating a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 912 for representing himself as a Border Patrol agent and soliciting payments for immigration documents.
- A confidential informant paid $2,800 toward a promised $7,000 fee after meeting the defendant; agents later detained him and confirmed he was not a federal employee.
- At sentencing, the district court applied multiple Guidelines enhancements, producing a Guidelines range higher than the 0–6 months range Munoz-Canellas asserted was correct.
- Munoz-Canellas contested three enhancements: (1) a six-level loss enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D); (2) a two-level ‘‘theft from the person’’ enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(3); and (3) a two-level enhancement for misrepresenting governmental affiliation under § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A).
- The district court considered the 0–6 month Guidelines range Munoz-Canellas advocated and explicitly stated that range was inadequate and that it would impose an 18‑month sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in part because the defendant had already spent six months in solitary confinement.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded any Guidelines calculation error was harmless because the district court would have imposed the same 18‑month sentence regardless of the Guidelines range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of six‑level loss enhancement (§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(D)) | Government contends payments to defendant count as loss/victim harm warranting enhancement | Munoz‑Canellas argues payors were not "victims" under the Guidelines, so enhancement improper | Court did not reach merits; any error harmless because court would impose same sentence |
| Theft‑from‑person enhancement (§ 2B1.1(b)(3)) | Government contends conduct supports two‑level enhancement | Munoz‑Canellas argues he did not take money directly from a person’s person | Reviewed for plain error; harmless because sentence unchanged |
| Misrepresenting government affiliation (§ 2B1.1(b)(9)(A)) | Government asserts enhancement fits misrepresentation of acting for government | Munoz‑Canellas argues he acted for personal gain, not government benefit | Reviewed for plain error; harmless because sentence unchanged |
| Whether sentencing error affected substantial rights | Government argues district court considered correct range and would have same sentence | Munoz‑Canellas asserts Guidelines errors could have affected sentence | Court held errors (if any) harmless; defendant’s substantial rights not affected; affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- Medina‑Torres v. United States, 703 F.3d 770 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for preserved Guidelines issues)
- Cisneros‑Gutierrez v. United States, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir.) (clear‑error review for facts supporting enhancements)
- Sanchez v. United States, 850 F.3d 767 (5th Cir.) (harmless‑error framework for sentencing errors)
- Richardson v. United States, 676 F.3d 491 (5th Cir.) (error harmless where court considered correct range and would impose same sentence)
- Groce v. United States, 784 F.3d 291 (5th Cir.) (requirement that record show district court had a particular sentence in mind)
- Ibarra‑Luna v. United States, 628 F.3d 712 (5th Cir.) (evidence needed to show unchanged sentence despite error)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S.) (plain‑error review framework)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S.) (standard for correcting plain error)