United States v. Godinez-Perez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19081
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Emanuel Godinez-Perez pleaded guilty to conspiracy and distribution counts involving methamphetamine; PSR attributed ~1,505.26 g (net) / ~1,479.8 g actual meth to the offense.
- PSR treated the total as “Ice” (≥80% purity) and set base offense level 36; after reductions total offense level was 31, Guidelines range 108–135 months. District court adopted PSR and sentenced to 108 months.
- Godinez sought a variance to <60 months, arguing he was least culpable and that 887.26 g seized from a storage unit were not under his control. He did not formally object to PSR drug-quantity findings at sentencing.
- On appeal Godinez argued the court failed to make particularized findings attributing relevant conduct (quantity/type) to him and that the court erred in using “Ice” rather than a mixture; he also challenged denial of a variance based on alleged lack of empirical basis for methamphetamine Guidelines.
- The Tenth Circuit held the district court plainly erred by failing to make particularized findings about the scope of Godinez’s jointly undertaken activity—specifically whether the 887.26 g from the storage unit were attributable to him—and remanded for resentencing. The court rejected the challenges to treating the drug as “Ice” and rejected the variance argument as a basis for reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Godinez) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court made required particularized findings attributing relevant-conduct drug quantity to Godinez | District court failed to make individualized findings; PSR did not link Godinez to all seized quantities (esp. 887.26 g in storage unit) | PSR and plea establish accountability for the total amount; seized items connected to defendant and coconspirators | Court: Error was plain. Lack of particularized findings could have affected substantial rights (would reduce base level from 36 to 34 and range); remand for resentencing. |
| Whether drug type should be treated as “Ice” (≥80% purity) or as a mixture for Guidelines calculations | Godinez: conviction and plea were for a mixture; court should not apply Ice designation | Government/PSR: measured purities justify treating total as Ice under §2D1.1 notes | Court: PSR and district court properly applied “Ice” definition; no reversible error. |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying downward variance based on asserted lack of empirical basis for methamphetamine Guidelines | Godinez: §2D1.1 lacks empirical support and over-penalizes methamphetamine; warrants downward variance | Government: Guidelines (and §2D1.1) reflect Congressional directives and expert input; courts need not re-litigate empirical basis piece-by-piece | Court: Reviewed for abuse of discretion and rejected the argument—district courts are not required to dissect empirical grounding of each Guideline; denial not reversible. |
| Whether an unobjected-to Guidelines error satisfied plain-error relief standards | Godinez: erroneous higher Guidelines range affected substantial rights and fairness | Government: (conceded error as to findings) argued adequacy of PSR/adopted facts | Court: Applied Molina‑Martinez plain‑error framework; found reasonable probability of different outcome and that error presumptively affects fairness; remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Sup. Ct.) (plain‑error review when incorrect Guidelines range used)
- United States v. Figueroa‑Labrada, 720 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir.) (district court must make particularized findings attributing coconspirator conduct as relevant conduct)
- United States v. Sabillon‑Umana, 772 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir.) (presumption that an obvious misapplication of the Guidelines satisfies plain‑error third and fourth elements)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (empirical basis of Guidelines and review of sentencing practices)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (Sup. Ct.) (district courts may vary based on policy disagreements with Guidelines)
- United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528 (5th Cir.) (district courts need not analyze empirical grounding for each Guidelines provision)
- United States v. Aguilar‑Huerta, 576 F.3d 365 (7th Cir.) (same point on empirical analysis and manageability of sentencing)