United States v. Jose Reyna-Esparza
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1415
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Reyna-Esparza, an unlawfully present Mexican national, worked for an alien-smuggling operation and pleaded guilty to conspiring to harbor aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324. Four other counts were dismissed in the plea agreement.
- Border Patrol agents and escaped stash-house occupants identified Reyna-Esparza as a caretaker who kept ledger records, conducted head counts, confiscated phones, and restricted occupants’ movement.
- Two escapees witnessed Reyna-Esparza direct another person to retrieve a handgun from a vehicle, bring it into the stash house, and saw him place it in his waistband; Reyna-Esparza admitted possessing a weapon but said it was a pellet gun.
- The PSR recommended a +4 sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5)(B) for brandishing a dangerous weapon; the district court applied the enhancement and sentenced Reyna-Esparza to 108 months’ imprisonment.
- Reyna-Esparza appealed, arguing the district court misapplied the brandishing definition (claimed intent to intimidate not required) and that the factual record did not support an intent-to-intimidate finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of § 2L1.1(b)(5)(B) brandishing enhancement | Government: enhancement proper where weapon displayed or its presence made known to intimidate occupants | Reyna-Esparza: court misstated brandishing standard and/or record lacks evidence he intended to intimidate | Affirmed: court correctly applied the definition and found intent to intimidate based on the totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fuentes-Jaimes, [citation="301 F. App'x 379"] (5th Cir.) (upholding brandishing enhancement where weapon display restrained aliens during smuggling transaction)
- United States v. Mendoza-Rojas, [citation="343 F. App'x 967"] (5th Cir.) (upholding enhancement where weapon displayed during/after kidnapping of smuggled aliens)
- United States v. Urias-Escobar, 281 F.3d 165 (5th Cir. 2002) (Guidelines commentary controls absent plain error)
- United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard of review: de novo for guideline interpretation; clear error for factual findings)
- United States v. Conner, 537 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2008) (government must prove sentencing facts by a preponderance of the evidence)
- United States v. Hicks, 980 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1992) (intimidation may be shown without explicit threats)
- United States v. Alcala, [citation="341 F. App'x 985"] (5th Cir.) (affirming enhancement where aliens reasonably could not leave and observed defendant with a handgun)