United States v. Jesus Lizarraga
682 F. App'x 529
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lizarraga (Calif.) recruited and directed distributors (Weyland, Beard, Weissenfluh) to obtain and sell large quantities (about 5 lbs per shipment) of near‑pure methamphetamine ("ice") between California and Iowa; he also directed proceeds be deposited or wired to specific U.S. and Mexican accounts.
- Law enforcement seized nearly five pounds of meth from Weissenfluh in May 2014; she then cooperated and provided recorded transactions and controlled buys, including $10,500 and a $1,500 wire of government funds to accounts Lizarraga had designated.
- In June 2015 police recovered about five pounds of meth from Lizarraga’s vehicle and hotel room; Lizarraga pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846) and money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956).
- The PSR recommended a 3‑level aggravating‑role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) (manager/supervisor of activity involving five or more participants or otherwise extensive); Lizarraga objected but did not dispute the PSR facts.
- The district court applied the § 3B1.1(b) enhancement, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 235–293 months; it sentenced Lizarraga to 264 months on the conspiracy count (240 months concurrent on money‑laundering), and denied a downward variance.
- On appeal Lizarraga argued the § 3B1.1(b) enhancement was erroneous, the court presumed Guidelines reasonableness, and the court failed adequately to explain consideration of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) aggravating‑role adjustment | Lizarraga: he was not a manager/supervisor and activity did not involve five or more participants or was not otherwise extensive | Government: factual stipulations and PSR show recruitment, direction, use of associates, cross‑state coordination, and use of others’ accounts — meeting § 3B1.1 criteria | Court: Affirmed enhancement — preponderance of evidence supported manager/supervisor role and five+ participants or otherwise extensive activity |
| Sufficiency of evidence for unnamed participants | Lizarraga: unnamed California associates insufficient to count as participants | Government: unnamed associates who hid drugs are properly considered participants | Court: Unnamed participants may be counted; evidence sufficient to show five or more participants |
| Adequacy of district court’s § 3553(a) consideration and explanation | Lizarraga: court failed to adequately explain reasoning and presumed Guidelines were reasonable | Government: court considered PSR, arguments, § 3553(a) factors and declined to vary | Court: No procedural error — court expressly considered factors, did not presume reasonableness, and explanation was sufficient |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Lizarraga: mid‑range sentence was greater than necessary | Government: sentence within advisory range and justified by facts and § 3553(a) factors | Court: Sentence not an abuse of discretion and substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gaines, 639 F.3d 423 (8th Cir.) (review standards for factual findings and Guidelines application)
- United States v. Bolden, 622 F.3d 988 (8th Cir.) (recruiting members supports manager/supervisor finding)
- United States v. Starks, 815 F.3d 438 (8th Cir.) (preponderance standard and review for clear error of role findings)
- United States v. Rosas, 486 F.3d 374 (8th Cir.) (nature, complexity, and geographic reach relevant to "otherwise extensive")
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of sentences; procedural and substantive components)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district court need not provide extended explanation when applying Guidelines)