United States v. Jose Romero-Payan
696 F. App'x 245
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Romero-Payan appeals his 46‑month custodial sentence and 5‑year supervised release following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute heroin under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846.
- The district court denied a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b).
- The court allegedly compared Romero-Payan to a hypothetical drug courier rather than actual participants.
- Romero-Payan also contends the court failed to calculate the applicable Guidelines range for supervised release and did not adequately explain the sentence.
- The government and the PSR, sentencing memorandum, and chart reflected the applicable supervised release range.
- The panel affirms the judgment, finding no reversible error and that the sentence is substantively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying a minor role adjustment. | Romero-Payan argues the court inappropriately compared him to a hypothetical courier. | The court compared him to actual participants and properly considered relevant facts. | No error; properly compared to actual participants. |
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by not calculating the supervised release Guidelines range or adequately explaining the term. | Romero-Payan asserts a failure to calculate the range and explain the sentence. | No plain error; the court was aware of the range and explanation was adequate. | No plain error; explanation sufficient. |
| Whether the five-year supervised release term is substantively reasonable under the § 3583(c) factors and totality of the circumstances. | Romero-Payan contends the term is excessive given the offense. | Term warranted by deterrence and the defendant's conduct and circumstances. | Term substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016) (proper comparison for minor role to actual participants)
- United States v. Hatley, 15 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 1994) (consideration of organization facts in role determinations)
- Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2010) (no plain error without explicit Guidelines calculation when record shows awareness)
- United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2009) (plain error standard for Guidelines calculations)
- United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2008) (awareness of Guidelines range can overcome lack of explicit calculation)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (adequate explanation may be inferred from record)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonable sentence under the totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2012) (totality of circumstances in sentencing)