United States v. Jesus Rodriguez-De La Fuente
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21020
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Rodriguez pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 100 kg+ of marijuana; PSR initially recommended 87–108 months.
- Parties requested a continuance so Rodriguez could further debrief the Government to seek the U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(17) "safety-valve" reduction; the court granted the continuance.
- At reconvened sentencing the court sustained some of Rodriguez’s PSR objections (removing a two-level role enhancement and limiting use of proffered statements), lowering the guidelines to 70–87 months.
- The Government said Rodriguez’s debrief was incomplete (family involvement issues); the court asked if Rodriguez wanted more time to debrief—Rodriguez declined, expressly forfeiting further debriefing and any resulting safety-valve or §5K reduction.
- The court denied Rodriguez’s motion for downward departure/variance and imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 78 months; Rodriguez appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by not applying two-level safety-valve (§2D1.1(b)(17)) | Rodriguez: he satisfied §5C1.2(a) requirements including truthful debriefing | Government: debriefing was incomplete; defendant waived further debriefing | Court: Waiver—Rodriguez intentionally relinquished further debriefing; error unreviewable |
| Whether 78‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Rodriguez: sentence unreasonably high given assistance, corroboration, guilty plea | Government: within-guidelines presumption of reasonableness; district court balanced §3553 factors | Court: No plain error; within-guidelines sentence presumed reasonable and not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gomez‑Valle, 828 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2016) (standard for review when defendant did not object to sentencing issue)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error review framework)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinction between waiver and forfeiture)
- United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑guidelines sentences)