United States v. Godinez-Perez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23039
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Godinez-Perez pleaded guilty to conspiracy and distribution counts involving methamphetamine after controlled buys and multiple seizures totaling ~1,505.26 g (net ~1,479.8 g actual meth). PSR attributed the entire amount to him and set base offense level at 36 (Ice), yielding a Guidelines range of 108–135 months. No formal objections to the PSR were filed; district court adopted PSR and sentenced him to 108 months.
- Seizures included two controlled buys (total ~172.2 g), 436 g seized from a vehicle registered to Godinez (vehicle driven by a supplier), 16.57 g from a co-defendant’s apartment, and 887.26 g seized from a rented storage unit after surveillance that showed multiple, unidentified persons at the unit.
- At plea Godinez admitted conduct covering the buys and possession/distribution counts that amounted to at least 650 g, but did not specifically admit responsibility for all drugs seized from the storage unit.
- PSR treated the total as “Ice” (>=80% purity) because most seizures were high purity; Godinez argued at sentencing he controlled only ~601.57 g and that the 887.26 g from the storage unit was not under his control.
- On appeal, Godinez argued the district court erred in (1) failing to make particularized findings attributing the storage-unit quantity to him (relevant-conduct/quantity), (2) using “Ice” rather than a mixture, and (3) denying a variance based on the Commission’s empirical basis for drug guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Godinez’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by failing to make particularized findings attributing all seized meth to Godinez (relevant-conduct quantity) | District court defaulted to total conspiracy quantity without particularized findings tying the 887.26 g storage-unit seizure to him; PSR lacked individualized attribution | PSR and plea/factual recitation supported attributing most quantities; government contended record supported attribution | Reversed and remanded: court committed plain error by not making particularized findings; attribution of the storage-unit quantity was not foreclosed and could change the Guidelines range, affecting substantial rights. |
| Whether district court erred in treating the drugs as “Ice” (high-purity meth) rather than as a mixture | Godinez: plea and counts referenced a ‘‘mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine,’’ so base should be mixture-based | Government: PSR showed >80% purity across seizures; Guidelines define “Ice” and assign weight of mixture to substance producing higher offense level | Affirmed: treating the aggregate as Ice was proper under §2D1.1 Notes given the recorded purities. |
| Whether district court abused discretion by rejecting a downward variance based on alleged lack of empirical basis for meth guidelines | Godinez: §2D1.1 is not empirically grounded and over-penalizes meth; this justified a variance | Government: Guidelines reflect congressional directives and expert input; district court may rely on quantity/purity to assess relative culpability | Affirmed: even if court’s general remark about empirical basis was ambiguous, any error did not affect outcome; district court permissibly considered amount/purity and reasonably denied variance. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Molina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Sup. Ct.) (plain-error review when defendant forfeits Guidelines objections; erroneous higher Guidelines range establishes reasonable probability of different outcome)
- United States v. Figueroa-Labrada, 720 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir.) (district court must make particularized findings to attribute coconspirator conduct as relevant conduct)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (reasonableness review of sentencing; discussion of empirical basis of Guidelines and when Commission departed from empirical approach)
- United States v. Sabillon-Umana, 772 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir.) (obvious misapplication of Guidelines normally satisfies plain-error third and fourth elements)
- United States v. Franklin-El, 554 F.3d 903 (10th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of downward variance)
- United States v. Smart, 518 F.3d 800 (10th Cir.) (same standard for substantive reasonableness of variance)