United States v. Francisco Sanchez-Villarreal, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8992

Sanchez-Villarreal was stopped with ~5.95 kg of cocaine and admitted he was paid to transport it as a drug courier; a handgun and ammunition were also found in the vehicle.
Indicted on conspiracy and possession-with-intent charges; pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute ≥5 kg of cocaine.
PSR calculated total offense level 29, Criminal History Category V, Guidelines range 140–175 months.
Defense sought a mitigating-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 (courier/minor participant); district court denied the adjustment, finding his role “critical.”
District court first announced a 135-month sentence, then within 14 days corrected it to 155 months under Rule 35(a) as a “misspeaking” error.
On appeal, Sanchez-Villarreal argued (1) the Rule 35 resentencing was proper and (2) Amendment 794 to the § 3B1.2 commentary (effective Nov. 1, 2015) is clarifying and should be applied to favor a mitigating-role reduction; the Fifth Circuit remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court had authority under Rule 35(a) to correct sentence from 135 to 155 months	The 135‑month oral sentence was a clear, obvious mistake and properly correctable within 14 days	The resentencing reweighed Guidelines and thus exceeded narrow Rule 35(a) correction power	Court held Rule 35(a) correction was authorized: initial 135‑month pronouncement was an obvious error and lacked required explanation for a variance
Whether Amendment 794 to § 3B1.2 is clarifying and applicable retroactively; and whether denial of § 3B1.2 adjustment was legal error	Amendment 794 is clarifying; district court erred by treating “critical/essential” role as determinative and failed to compare defendant to the average participant	Government conceded amendment is clarifying but argued facts showed no minor role; also contended defendant preserved no specific Amendment‑based argument	Court concluded Amendment 794 is clarifying and applicable; district court erred by giving dispositive weight to defendant’s “critical” role and failing to make findings about the average participant — vacated and remanded for resentencing

United States v. Olarte-Rojas, 820 F.3d 798 (5th Cir. 2016) (limits on Rule 35(a) correction authority)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court must explain departures/variances from Guidelines)
United States v. Quintero-Levya, 823 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016) (Amendment 794 treated as clarifying)
United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2016) (Amendment 794 is clarifying and retroactive)
United States v. Vazquez, 839 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2016) (standard of review and remand guidance when factual role determinations are debatable)