United States v. Gilberto Gomez
905 F.3d 347
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Gomez was convicted by a jury of multiple drug and firearms offenses, including methamphetamine distribution (Counts 1–2) and two separate § 924(c) firearm offenses (Counts 3 and 5).
- PSR grouped the drug counts, applied a base offense level and two specific enhancements: maintaining a drug premises and a two-level § 3B1.1(c) leader/organizer adjustment, yielding an offense level of 38 and Criminal History III.
- Statutory mandatory minimums produced a 40-year floor from the firearms counts (consecutive under § 924(c)) plus a 10-year minimum for methamphetamine counts; aggregate exposure produced a 652-month sentence (292 months drug + 360 months firearms).
- Gomez objected to the leadership enhancement and argued the court could/should avoid “stacking” consecutive § 924(c) terms; the district court overruled objections, stated it felt bound by statute, and imposed the 652-month aggregate term.
- On appeal Gomez challenged (1) the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement, (2) adequacy of the district court’s § 3553(a) explanation, and (3) whether the court mistakenly believed it could not consider § 924(c) mandatory minimums when sentencing the non‑mandatory counts in light of Dean v. United States.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) | Gomez: he was not organizer/leader; he and Cantu were equal | Government: record shows Gomez exercised control, paid/controlled Cantu, set prices and handled drugs | Court: affirmed — factual finding not clearly erroneous; enhancement plausible on record |
| Adequacy of sentencing explanation / § 3553(a) | Gomez: court failed to adequately explain or consider § 3553(a) factors | Government: court adopted PSR, recited calculations, and sentenced within Guidelines on drug counts | Court: no plain error; explanation sufficient given within‑Guidelines sentence on nondiscretionary counts |
| Whether court could consider § 924(c) mandatory minimums when sentencing predicate counts (Dean issue) | Gomez: per Dean, court may consider mandatory § 924(c) terms when fashioning sentence for non‑mandatory counts | Government: court merely described statutory requirements and “misspoke”; no plain error shown | Court: Dean authorizes consideration; record suggests district judge may have believed otherwise; cannot tell if judge would have reduced discretionary counts — remand required |
| Remedy | Gomez: requests vacatur/resentencing to allow court to apply Dean | Government: defends sentence as lawful | Court: limited remand ordered asking district court whether it wishes to modify the sentence in light of Dean; appellate jurisdiction retained pending response |
Key Cases Cited
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (sentencing courts may consider § 924(c) mandatory minimums when determining sentence for predicate counts)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review framework for sentences: procedural then substantive review)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Guidelines are advisory; sentencing courts have discretion)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district court need not provide lengthy explanation when sentencing within a properly calculated Guidelines range)
- United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) (district‑court inquiry on remand often necessary to resolve ambiguity about whether judge would have imposed a different sentence)