United States v. Garrido, 20-10683

Antonio Lorensito Garrido pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500+ grams of methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841).
The district court imposed a downward variance from the Guidelines and sentenced Garrido to 144 months’ imprisonment plus five years’ supervised release.
Garrido appealed, challenging (1) the denial of a mitigating-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 and (2) the application of a § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement based on imported methamphetamine.
Under controlling Fifth Circuit law, a defendant bears the burden to prove a mitigating-role adjustment by a preponderance and must show he was substantially less culpable than the average participant.
The district court found Garrido was not substantially less culpable; the court also applied the importation enhancement despite Garrido’s asserted lack of knowledge that the drugs were imported.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the § 3B1.2 denial for clear error and concluded precedent foreclosed Garrido’s lack-of-knowledge challenge to the importation enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garrido was entitled to a § 3B1.2 mitigating-role (minor/ minimal) adjustment	Government: district court correctly found Garrido not substantially less culpable than the average participant; defendant did not meet his burden	Garrido: he did not plan, organize, or make decisions and thus was substantially less culpable	Denied. The district court’s factual finding was plausible and not clearly erroneous; defendant failed to meet his burden
Whether § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement for imported methamphetamine was improper because Garrido lacked knowledge of importation	Government: enhancement applies under Fifth Circuit precedent regardless of defendant’s claimed lack of awareness	Garrido: he was unaware the meth was imported, so enhancement should not apply (and alternatively would not apply if he were a minor participant)	Affirmed. Knowledge-of-importation challenge is foreclosed by binding precedent; enhancement properly applied

Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2016) (defendant bears burden to prove mitigating-role adjustment by a preponderance)
Castro, 843 F.3d 608 (5th Cir. 2016) (two-part inquiry: average participant culpability and whether defendant was substantially less culpable)
Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2016) (clear-error review: factual findings are not clearly erroneous if plausible in light of the whole record)
Escobar, 866 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2017) (§ 3B1.2 culpability analysis is fact-specific)
Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2017) (upholding district court’s denial of mitigating-role adjustment as not clearly erroneous)
Foulks, 747 F.3d 914 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding knowledge of importation is not required for § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement)
Serfass, 684 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2012) (same rule on importation enhancement)
Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intel. Ctr., 548 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2008) (authority applying importation/knowledge principles)