United States v. Jose Torres-Magana
938 F.3d 213
5th Cir.2019Background
- Defendant Jose Torres-Magana pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5+ kg of cocaine and was leader of a nationwide trafficking organization.
- Torres-Magana and his wife solicited his stepson, Alfonso Govea Jr., to deliver a box of cocaine; Govea initially refused but later delivered it; Govea and Torres-Magana’s wife co-owned businesses that laundered drug proceeds.
- The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(15)(A) for using "fear, impulse, friendship, affection" to involve another who received little/no compensation and had minimal knowledge of the enterprise.
- Torres-Magana objected, arguing (1) Govea had more than minimal knowledge (laundering role), (2) no remuneration occurred because the shipment was intercepted, and (3) the court misstated the relationship (son vs. stepson).
- The district court adopted the PSR, overruled objections, applied the 2-level enhancement, and sentenced Torres-Magana to 172 months’ imprisonment; he appealed claiming clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Torres-Magana used fear/affection/friendship to involve Govea | Torres-Magana argued the court mischaracterized relationship (son vs stepson) and disputed the characterization of coercion | Government relied on PSR facts showing repeated pressure and use of a mother’s cancer appointment to induce Govea | Court: Enhancement proper — familial pressure plausibly used to overcome Govea’s resistance; mislabeling son/stepson immaterial |
| Whether Govea received little or no compensation | Torres-Magana argued the intercepted shipment meant no one profited, undermining "no compensation" prong | Government pointed to PSR stating no indication of compensation; defendant offered no rebuttal evidence | Court: Enhancement proper — PSR plausibly shows no compensation; district court may adopt PSR absent competent rebuttal |
| Whether Govea had minimal knowledge of scope/structure | Torres-Magana argued Govea co-owned businesses laundering proceeds and thus had extensive knowledge | Government relied on PSR finding Govea lacked knowledge of the nationwide organization’s scope/structure | Court: Enhancement proper — defendant’s assertions were conclusory; PSR-supported finding of minimal knowledge is plausible under clear-error review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013) (standards: de novo review of guideline application and clear-error review of district factual findings)
- United States v. Richard, 901 F.3d 514 (5th Cir. 2018) (factual findings upheld if plausible in light of the record)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (where two permissible views of evidence exist, choice is not clearly erroneous)
- United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2015) (district court may adopt PSR information absent competent rebuttal)
- United States v. Juarez, 626 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2010) (government bears preponderance burden for sentencing enhancements)
- United States v. Alfaro, 919 F.2d 962 (5th Cir. 1990) (unsworn objections and argument generally are not competent rebuttal to PSR)