United States v. Joel Castillo
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8291
8th Cir.2013Background
- Castillo was convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841 and sentenced to 235 months after district court denied judgment of acquittal and a mitigating-role reduction.
- In November 2011, Castillo was stopped on I-40 near Ozark, Arkansas; deputies observed erratic driving and that Castillo appeared nervous during questioning.
- A box in the sleeper area, wrapped in cellophane and smelling of mustard, contained four bundles of methamphetamine; lab analysis showed 9.8 pounds of 91–99% pure methamphetamine.
- Castillo testified that a friend, ‘El Cowboy,’ had given him the box to deliver; he claimed he did not notice a smell from the box.
- At trial the government presented a narcotics courier protocol expert; Castillo moved for judgment of acquittal after both sides rested; the district court denied.
- The PSR assigned a base offense level of 38 and criminal history II, yielding a guideline range of 262–327 months; the district court downwardly varied to criminal history I, resulting in a 235–293 month range and a 235-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supported knowledge of drug possession | Castillo argued lack of knowledge evidence; necessary for § 841. | The government showed dominion and misleading conduct indicating knowledge. | Sufficient evidence supported knowing possession. |
| Whether Castillo qualified for a mitigating role adjustment under § 3B1.2 | Castillo claimed minimal role warranted reduction. | No evidence showed a lesser role; sole operator with predicable culpability. | District court did not clearly err; no mitigating role reduction. |
| Whether the district court properly considered § 3553(a) factors | Court failed to consider all § 3553(a) factors. | Court acknowledged it considered § 3553(a) factors. | Record shows the court considered § 3553(a) factors. |
| Whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively reasonable | Sentence improperly weighed factors; too lenient given prior offense. | Sentence fell at bottom of guideline range and was reasonable. | Sentence affirmed as substantively reasonable; no procedural error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aponte, 619 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 2010) (knowledge may be inferred from dominion and odor and behavior)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing with presumption inside guidelines)
- United States v. Aleman, 548 F.3d 1158 (8th Cir. 2008) (procedural and substantive considerations in guideline applications)
- United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2008) (courts need not make explicit § 3553(a) findings, but must show awareness of factors)
- United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2004) (application of 3553(a) factors on appeal)
- United States v. Dengler, 695 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2012) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review framework for sentences)