United States v. Jesse Neri, 73 F.4th 984

Undercover DEA agent bought ~1 pound of meth from a passenger in a vehicle; agent paid $4,100. The passenger was later identified as Jessi Neri.
A traffic stop confirmed Neri (passenger) and his brother Oswaldo (driver); investigators obtained a search warrant for their shared residence.
Search recovered digital scale, baggies, and ~6 pounds of methamphetamine in Oswaldo’s closet; both brothers were arrested.
Neri pled guilty the morning trial was to begin; Oswaldo went to trial and was convicted by a jury.
The PSR attributed the 6 pounds to Neri as relevant conduct, applied a two‑level importation enhancement, and denied a minor‑role reduction; the district court overruled Neri’s objections and calculated a Guidelines range of 188–235 months.
The court sentenced Neri to 210 months’ imprisonment on each count (concurrent), stating it would have imposed the same sentence even if some objections had been sustained; this appeal followed.

Issue	Neri's Argument	United States' Argument	Held
1) Attribution of 6 lb as relevant conduct	The six pounds found in Oswaldo’s closet should not be attributed to Neri	The 6 lb was part of the conspiracy and properly attributable to Neri as relevant conduct	Affirmed; any procedural error was harmless because the court said it would have imposed the same sentence and conducted §3553(a) analysis
2) Two‑level enhancement for knowing importation	Neri lacked knowledge that meth was imported from Mexico	Conspiracy involved knowing importation from Mexico; PSR allegations supported enhancement	Affirmed; treated as harmless error in light of court’s statement and §3553(a) reasoning
3) Denial of minor‑role reduction	Neri was a minor participant deserving a downward adjustment	Neri used his truck and personally handed ~1 lb to the undercover agent, showing active participation	Affirmed; district court reasonably denied minor‑role reduction and any error was harmless
4) Substantive reasonableness of sentence	210 months is greater than necessary given acceptance, personal history, pretrial compliance, work history	Sentence within Guidelines and justified by offense gravity, quantity, importation, and criminal history	Affirmed; abuse‑of‑discretion review and presumption of reasonableness for Guidelines sentence

United States v. Kistler, 70 F.4th 450 (8th Cir. 2023) (describing two‑step review of sentences)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (defining significant procedural error categories)
United States v. Henson, 550 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2008) (harmlessness of procedural error at sentencing)
United States v. Gomez‑Diaz, 911 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2018) (court may raise harmless‑error sua sponte and must err on the defendant’s side)
Lufkins v. Leapley, 965 F.2d 1477 (8th Cir. 1992) (courts should err on the side of criminal defendant when assessing harmless error)
United States v. Sanchez‑Martinez, 633 F.3d 658 (8th Cir. 2011) (harmless error where court stated it would reach same sentence despite alleged Guideline error)
United States v. Thibeaux, 784 F.3d 1221 (8th Cir. 2015) (same principle regarding harmlessness when court would have imposed same sentence)
United States v. Carnes, 22 F.4th 743 (8th Cir. 2022) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for substantive review)
United States v. Ayres, 929 F.3d 581 (8th Cir. 2019) (highly deferential review of sentencing decisions)
United States v. Meadows, 866 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2017) (Guidelines‑range sentences presumed substantively reasonable)