United States v. Jose Luna-Salinas
702 F. App'x 195
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Luna–Salinas was arrested at the U.S.–Mexico border carrying 908.8 grams of methamphetamine taped to his body; he admitted being paid $500 to smuggle the packages and claimed he was forced and threatened by armed men.
- He pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute >50 grams of methamphetamine; no written plea agreement.
- The PSR denied a U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 mitigating-role adjustment, finding he had an essential/importing role and no evidence he recruited, directed, or had authority over others.
- Luna–Salinas objected in writing asserting he was a mere courier and alternatively sought a downward variance; he did not press the § 3B1.2 objection at sentencing or ask the court to make explicit factual findings.
- The district court adopted the PSR, granted a downward variance based on defendant characteristics, and sentenced him to 60 months (well below the Guidelines range).
- On appeal, Luna–Salinas argued the court failed to rule on the mitigating-role request (procedural error) and erred substantively in denying the adjustment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court procedurally erred by failing to expressly rule on a § 3B1.2 mitigating-role request | Luna–Salinas: court failed to provide an explicit factual basis; remand needed (Melton) | Government: adoption of PSR is sufficient; defendant forfeited by not objecting at sentencing | No error; adoption of PSR can constitute implicit findings and no plain error shown; AFFIRMED |
| Standard of review for substantive challenge to denial of § 3B1.2 adjustment | Luna–Salinas: preserved, so clear-error review | Government: waived or plain-error if not raised at sentencing | Court assumed preservation not dispositive and reviewed—because defendant cannot show clear error, outcome unaffected |
| Whether evidence supported granting a § 3B1.2 mitigating-role adjustment | Luna–Salinas: was a mere courier, lacked knowledge, planning, authority, or discretion | Government/PSR: defendant’s participation was essential, no corroboration of coercion, bare assertions insufficient | Denial was plausible; defendant failed to meet preponderance burden; no clear error |
| Whether PSR or district court misapplied § 3B1.2 factors (e.g., overemphasis on role being "critical") | Luna–Salinas: PSR’s focus on critical/essential role improperly dispositive | Government: critical role may be considered if not sole determinative factor | No misapplication; PSR considered relative culpability and lack of mitigating evidence; court’s implicit finding permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error standard for forfeited claims) (explains plain-error framework)
- United States v. Torres–Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to prove mitigating-role by preponderance; fact-findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Gomez–Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787 (5th Cir.) (clarifies clear-error review and plausibility standard)
- United States v. Melton, 930 F.2d 1096 (5th Cir.) (vacated where district court refused to articulate basis for denying mitigating-role adjustment)
- United States v. Castro, 843 F.3d 608 (5th Cir.) (a court may consider an integral/critical role so long as it is not the sole determinative factor)
- United States v. Sanchez–Villarreal, 857 F.3d 714 (5th Cir.) (error where district court gave conclusive weight to critical role)
- United States v. King, 773 F.3d 48 (5th Cir.) (adoption of PSR can constitute implicit factual findings)