United States v. Felipe Rivera-Paredes
697 F. App'x 347
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Felipe Rivera-Paredes pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and methamphetamine in violation of federal law.
- District court applied a 4-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for being an organizer/leader.
- The court relied on evidence that Rivera recruited participants, financed the operation, controlled the Mexican side of the operation, and exercised control over at least one co-conspirator.
- Rivera received a 210-month sentence (within the Guidelines range) and appealed.
- On appeal he challenged (1) the § 3B1.1(a) leadership enhancement and (2) that his sentence is grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 3B1.1(a) organizer/leader enhancement was proper | Rivera: court erred in finding him an organizer/leader | Government: record shows recruitment, financing, control of operation and at least one member | Court: factual finding supported; not clearly erroneous, enhancement affirmed |
| Whether the 210-month sentence is grossly disproportionate (Eighth Amendment) | Rivera: sentence is grossly disproportionate | Government: sentence was within Guidelines and not disproportionate | Court: review for plain error; Rivera failed to show clear/obvious error; sentence not grossly disproportionate; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163 (5th Cir. 2002) (factual findings about role are reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2006) (district court may draw reasonable inferences about defendant’s role; findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (failure to raise Eighth Amendment challenge in district court limits appellate review to plain error)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard requires showing of clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights)
- United States v. Mills, 843 F.3d 210 (5th Cir. 2016) (within-Guidelines sentences generally not grossly disproportionate)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (Eighth Amendment proportionality principles)