United States v. Jesus Guzman-Reyes
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5926
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Police followed Guzman after a tip and stopped him leaving an auto shop; search uncovered ~2,035.7 g methamphetamine, cash, phones, and a pistol; Guzman was an illegal reentrant.
- Shop-owner John Campbell told officers he stored methamphetamine and guns in the shop and produced ~618 g of additional methamphetamine found in the shop.
- Campbell admitted he stored Guzman’s methamphetamine for ~3 months in exchange for about one ounce per month; Guzman did not hold title or a lease but contacted Campbell for access.
- Guzman pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and illegal reentry; no plea agreement.
- The PSR applied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement for maintaining a premises for distribution and a two-level § 3B1.1(c) aggravating-role enhancement; the district court adopted both and sentenced Guzman to consecutive statutory maximums (240 + 120 months).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement applies for "maintaining" a premises for drug distribution | Guzman: He did not "maintain" the shop because he did not own or lease it and lacked formal possessory interest | Government: Guzman effectively maintained the premises by paying Campbell monthly, storing drugs there for distribution, and having on-call access and control | Court: Affirmed — sufficient dominion/control and primary use for storage supported maintenance under clear-error review |
| Whether § 3B1.1(c) aggravating-role enhancement applies | Guzman: Evidence insufficient to show he recruited/directed Campbell or acted as organizer/manager | Government: Guzman recruited and directed Campbell (paid him, controlled access), showing supervisory role | Court: Affirmed — PSR facts support finding Guzman recruited/organized and exercised control |
| Whether district court procedurally erred by relying on PSR and giving limited explanations | Guzman: Reliance on PSR, lack of explicit reasons, and alleged off-the-record discussion were procedural defects | Government: PSR is sufficiently reliable; Guzman failed to rebut; court adopted PSR findings which suffice | Court: No plain error — PSR reliable, defendant presented no rebuttal, and adoption of PSR adequately explains the ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Haines, 803 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2015) (standard: § 2D1.1(b)(12) application is a factual finding reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Morgan, 117 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 1997) (maintenance is fact-intensive; consider ownership, control, supervisory control)
- United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2012) (absence of deed/lease insufficient to avoid maintenance enhancement)
- United States v. Carter, 834 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2016) (§ 856/maintenance principles applied; physical presence not required)
- United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 2003) (§ 3B1.1(c) role can be inferred from facts showing recruitment and direction)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for unpreserved procedural claims)