United States v. Jesus Rodriguez-Escareno
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22533
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation; sentencing enhancement was based on a prior drug trafficking conspiracy conviction.
- PSR assigned base level 8; prior 2001 conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §846–841(a)(1)/(b)(1)(B) labeled a drug trafficking offense.
- Conspiracy conviction treated as a drug trafficking offense for purposes of the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement.
- Criminal history contributed to the calculation; defendant received a 48-month sentence after accepting responsibility.
- On appeal, Rodriguez-Escareno challenged the enhancement; the court reviewed for plain error since no objection was lodged.
- Court AFFIRMS the district court’s enhancement and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a §846 conspiracy can support the 16‑level enhancement | Rodriguez-Escareno argues no overt-act requirement for §846 conspiracy. | Rodriguez-Escareno contends conspiracy lacks overt act, so not eligible. | Yes; enhancement applies under the Guidelines as to conspiracies to commit drug offenses. |
| Whether the Guideline definitions authorize using a §846 conspiracy to support the enhancement | Rodriguez-Escareno asserts the definition should be drawn from outside the Guidelines. | Guidelines themselves define it via Application Note 5. | enhancement valid under the Guidelines and Application Notes. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2007) (plain-error review for sentencing challenge; application of enhancements)
- United States v. Najera-Mendoza, 683 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2012) (discusses generic meaning and approach to enumerated offenses)
- United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2006) (definition of conspiracy and use in guideline context)
- United States v. Tellez-Martinez, 517 F.3d 813 (5th Cir. 2008) (treatment of generic meaning of conspiracy in guidelines context)
- United States v. Mendez-Casarez, 624 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2010) (overt Act requirement for conspiracies in some contexts; guides interpretation here)
- United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1994) (conspiracy to commit drug offenses may not require overt act)