United States v. Gonzalez, 20-40163

Gonzalez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500+ grams of methamphetamine.
The district court sentenced him to 170 months (within the Guidelines range).
Gonzalez siphoned liquid meth from a transport vehicle into barrels for conversion to solid product and procured supplies for the conversion.
A codefendant, Delgado, received 120 months and acted as a "gopher" who confirmed delivery of the liquid meth.
Gonzalez challenged: (1) denial of a mitigating-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. §3B1.2; (2) substantive unreasonableness based on sentencing disparity under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(6); and (3) the application of the importation enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(5).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed: no mitigating-role adjustment, no substantive-unreasonableness from the disparity, and the importation enhancement was properly applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gonzalez deserved a mitigating-role (minor/lesser) adjustment	Gov't: Gonzalez was not substantially less culpable than an average participant	Gonzalez: His siphoning/procurement work was peripheral and he was less culpable	Court: No mitigating-role adjustment; record plausibly shows he was not substantially less culpable
Whether Gonzalez's 170-month sentence is substantively unreasonable due to disparity with Delgado	Gov't: Sentences reflect different conduct; disparity alone is insufficient	Gonzalez: His sentence creates unwarranted disparity with similarly situated Delgado	Court: No abuse of discretion; Delgado’s role and conduct were not similar, disparity alone insufficient
Whether importation enhancement §2D1.1(b)(5) was improperly applied	Gov't: Enhancement applies; no scienter requirement; Gonzalez not eligible for mitigating-role reduction anyway	Gonzalez: Enhancement improper; argues scienter or role should prevent enhancement	Court: Enhancement proper; no scienter required and mitigating-role finding was correct

United States v. Castro, 843 F.3d 608 (5th Cir. 2016) (mitigating-role analysis and what counts as "peripheral" participation)
United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 2010) (standards for role adjustments)
United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001) (doing less than others does not alone justify a mitigating-role reduction)
United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2009) (disparity between co-defendants does not automatically render a sentence unreasonable)
United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2008) (appellate review of sentencing disparities and district court discretion)
United States v. Lindell, 881 F.2d 1313 (5th Cir. 1989) (sentencing disparity principles and abuse-of-discretion review)
United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2012) (§2D1.1(b)(5) importation enhancement does not require proof of scienter)