United States v. Guadalupe Castro
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22050
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Castro and Uribe arrested transporting ~5.992 kg of heroin; both admitted multiple prior trips transporting drugs for a DTO and accepted payment per trip.
- Castro pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute; PSR recommended no § 3B1.2 mitigating-role adjustment and Probation’s Addendum explained a courier may be integral and thus not peripheral.
- District court adopted the PSR/Addendum, heard arguments, denied Castro’s objection for failing to prove she was substantially less culpable than the average participant, and sentenced her to 60 months.
- Castro appealed, arguing the district court applied the wrong legal standard (focusing on whether she was “integral”) and that Amendment 794 to the Guidelines—clarifying the § 3B1.2 analysis—should entitle her to relief (and that any error was not harmless).
- Fifth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that Amendment 794 could apply retroactively but held Castro did not meet the Amendment’s comparative burden (prove average participant’s culpability and that she was substantially less culpable).
Issues
| Issue | Castro's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 794 is retroactively applicable (substantive v. clarifying) | Amendment 794 clarifies § 3B1.2 and should apply; the court used the wrong standard | Court need not decide retroactivity; even if retroactive Castro gains no relief | Court assumed retroactivity for argument’s sake and proceeded to merits (no relief) |
| Whether district court clearly erred in denying a § 3B1.2 mitigating-role adjustment under Amendment 794 | Court improperly relied on whether Castro was “integral”; Amendment 794 requires comparative analysis showing Castro was substantially less culpable than the average participant | Court considered the record, Amendment 794 factors, and found Castro failed to prove by preponderance that she was substantially less culpable | No clear error: denial affirmed because record plausibly supports that Castro was not substantially less culpable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324 (5th Cir.) (Amendment 794 amended commentary; does not guarantee reduction to all non-masterminds)
- United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2005) (participant-role determinations reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001) (defendant bears burden to prove mitigating-role adjustment by preponderance)
- United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1989) (a courier can be ineligible for a role reduction)
- United States v. Thomas, 932 F.2d 1085 (5th Cir. 1991) (defendant must be peripheral enough to be substantially less culpable than average participant)
- United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.) (Amendment 794 factors are non-exclusive; courts may infer consideration from briefing)