United States v. Javier Guerrero
768 F.3d 351
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Javier Guerrero, alleged leader of the Texas Mexican Mafia in Uvalde, was tried on RICO charges (including two murders) and convicted on all counts; he received effectively three consecutive life sentences. 33 witnesses and four government experts testified.
- Historical cell‑site location records (from providers) were admitted at trial though obtained by state subpoena rather than the Stored Communications Act §2703(d) order.
- Guerrero committed an assault on a correctional officer while awaiting sentencing and pleaded guilty; the court sentenced him to 210 months after denying acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction and classifying him as a career offender.
- On appeal Guerrero raised multiple challenges: suppression of cell‑site data (Fourth Amendment, SCA), juvenile‑jurisdiction under the Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act, sufficiency of evidence for Mendez murder, Brady/Giglio/Jencks/discovery claims, constructive amendment/Rule 404(b) concerns, expert admissibility, and sentencing issues (acceptance and career‑offender status).
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed in full: it upheld admission of cell‑site evidence (declining to extend Riley to overrule In re Historical Cell Site), rejected the juvenile‑jurisdiction challenge (post‑18 ratification rule), found trial evidence sufficient, rejected disclosure/Jencks claims as forfeited or meritless, upheld expert rulings, and affirmed sentencing rulings including career‑offender application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility / suppression of historical cell‑site records | Guerrero: records obtained in violation of SCA §2703(d); suppression warranted (Fourth Amendment violation). | Government: SCA violation, but suppression not a statutory remedy; cell‑site records do not implicate reasonable expectation of privacy under Smith/In re Historical Cell Site; Riley does not overrule that line. | Admitted. SCA provides no suppression remedy; under Fifth Circuit precedent historical cell‑site data is not categorically protected by the Fourth Amendment and Riley did not unequivocally overrule that precedent. |
| Juvenile‑jurisdiction under JJDP Act | Guerrero: conspiracy began when he was a juvenile, government needed AG certification to prosecute. | Government: defendant ratified and continued conspiracy after 18; Tolliver rule allows prosecution based on post‑18 ratification. | Rejected. Sufficient post‑18 conduct showed ratification; district court had jurisdiction. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder in aid of racketeering (Mendez) | Guerrero: lack of DNA and cell‑site data could place him far from scene; insufficient to convict. | Government: multiple witnesses, statements, cell‑site data consistent with being near scene, post‑murder conduct (disposing clothes), admissions to subordinates. | Affirmed. Viewed in favor of verdict, evidence was sufficient. |
| Brady / Giglio / Jencks / discovery claims | Guerrero: government failed to disclose impeachment and Jencks materials (e.g., Davalos murder admissions, immunity agreements, Orlando prison riot evidence, recorded calls). | Government / district court: material was disclosed or not favorable to defendant; many claims were forfeited/waived for failure to seek production at trial. | Rejected. District court’s factual findings upheld; Jencks and Rule 16 issues waived by failure to preserve. |
| Constructive amendment / Rule 404(b) and expert admissibility | Guerrero: introduction of Pos Pos murder, extortion/drug acts from juvenile period, and experts improperly broadened the theory or impugned character. | Government: evidence admissible to prove conspiracy/RICO enterprise; experts properly qualified under Daubert. | Rejected. No constructive amendment; evidence lawful (uncharged acts tied to the enterprise); expert admissions not an abuse of discretion. |
| Sentencing: acceptance of responsibility reduction | Guerrero: pleaded guilty and merited two‑point reduction. | Government/district court: defendant’s statement and attitude showed lack of acceptance. | Affirmed. District court did not abuse discretion in denying reduction. |
| Sentencing: career‑offender classification | Guerrero: guideline text suggests sentences (not convictions) count; his convictions were unsentenced at assault time so shouldn’t count. | Government: guideline definition treats conviction date as date guilt is established; unsentenced convictions count; prior racketeering conviction(s) counted jointly plus separate narcotics conviction. | Affirmed. Guideline text and circuit precedent treat unsentenced convictions as qualifying; classification proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Application of the U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir.) (cell‑site historical data not categorically protected by Fourth Amendment under third‑party doctrine)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (search‑incident‑to‑arrest doctrine does not permit warrantless searches of cell phone contents)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (third‑party doctrine; no reasonable expectation of privacy in numbers dialed)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (scope and prudential purposes of exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Tolliver, 61 F.3d 1189 (5th Cir. 1995) (post‑18 ratification permits federal conspiracy prosecution despite juvenile start)
- United States v. Harris, 740 F.3d 956 (5th Cir. 2014) (sufficiency review standard; post‑18 conduct supports conspiracy conviction)
- United States v. Clenney, 631 F.3d 658 (4th Cir. 2011) (no general exclusionary rule for statutory violations)