United States v. Jhonathan Tejas
868 F.3d 1242
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jhonathan Tejas took an undelivered express-mail package from the front seat of a USPS delivery vehicle after failing to produce ID matching the addressee; he was acquitted at trial of assault and robbery but convicted of theft of mail (18 U.S.C. § 1708).
- PSR applied multiple Guidelines enhancements: +2 for 10+ victims under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) based on the commentary "special rule" for theft from a delivery vehicle; +2 under § 2B1.1(b)(3) for theft from the person; +3 under § 3A1.2 for targeting a government employee.
- District court adopted the PSR and denied a § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction because Tejas went to trial and denied pushing the mail carrier.
- Sentenced to 366 days; Tejas appealed contesting the number-of-victims enhancement, the theft-from-person enhancement, the official-victim enhancement, and denial of acceptance-of-responsibility.
- Eleventh Circuit reviewed Guidelines interpretations de novo and factual findings for clear error and affirmed all rulings except vacated the 10+ victims enhancement as inconsistent with the guideline text on these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tejas) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number-of-victims enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) | Special-rule application was improper because defendant only took one package and thus at most one addressee was a victim | Special rule in commentary treats theft from a delivery vehicle as involving at least 10 victims to address proof problems and protect mail integrity | Vacated enhancement; special-rule mandate of 10 victims inconsistent with guideline text where record shows fewer than 10 victims |
| Theft "from the person of another" (§ 2B1.1(b)(3)) | Enhancement improper because package was in vehicle, not held by or within arms’ reach of carrier | Carrier testified package was placed in front area and defendant pushed her aside to take it; package was within arms’ reach | Affirmed: factfinder did not clearly err; package accessible to carrier, risk of injury supported enhancement |
| Official-victim enhancement (§ 3A1.2) | Enhancement improper because defendant wasn’t motivated by victim’s government status and was acquitted of assault | Offense targeted a postal employee who was in possession of mail; Bailey analogous where postal employee targeted because of official role | Affirmed: district court’s application not clearly erroneous given comparison to Bailey |
| Acceptance-of-responsibility (§ 3E1.1) | Tejas argued he never denied the sole convicted conduct and sought a two-level reduction despite trial | District court found Tejas affirmatively denied relevant conduct (pushing the carrier) and credibility favored government evidence | Affirmed: denial of reduction not clearly erroneous because Tejas continued to deny relevant conduct after trial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bailey, 961 F.2d 180 (11th Cir. 1992) (official-victim enhancement upheld where postal employee targeted because of possession of mail)
- United States v. Fulford, 662 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2011) (guidelines commentary is authoritative unless inconsistent with guideline text)
- United States v. Jankowski, 194 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 1999) (distinguishing theft separated by bulkhead from theft "from the person of another")
- United States v. Sammour, 816 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2016) (denial of acceptance adjustment affirmed where defendant downplayed culpability)
- United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard of review and deference for acceptance-of-responsibility determinations by district courts)