United States v. Juan Garcia-Moreno
692 F. App'x 766
5th Cir.2017Background
- Garcia pleaded guilty to importing >=500 grams of cocaine and was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment.
- Border Patrol found 4,991 grams of cocaine in Garcia’s truck; his 15‑year‑old daughter was riding with him.
- Garcia lied to agents about the trip and whether narcotics were in the truck; his daughter corroborated his false account.
- Garcia admitted the importation was knowing and intentional and said he controlled the truck from purchase until arrest except for a 10–15 minute period.
- The district court applied a two‑level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3B1.4 (use of a minor to avoid detection) and denied a mitigating‑role adjustment under §3B1.2 without a detailed, explicit ruling.
- Garcia appealed, arguing the §3B1.4 enhancement was improper and that the court failed to rule and articulate findings on his mitigating‑role request; he had not preserved specific objections to the latter issue at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3B1.4 enhancement (use of a minor to avoid detection) was properly applied | Garcia: Daughter’s presence was innocent; he did not take affirmative steps to involve her | Government: Daughter corroborated Garcia’s lies and her presence helped avoid detection; Garcia planned the crime | Court: Affirmed enhancement — evidence showed affirmative act and purposeful use of child to avoid detection |
| Whether district court erred by not explicitly ruling/articulating facts when denying a mitigating‑role adjustment (§3B1.2) | Garcia: Court failed to rule and articulate factual basis, meriting reversal | Government: Garcia failed to preserve specific objection; review should be plain‑error only | Court: Review under plain‑error standard; Garcia failed to show clear/obvious error affecting substantial rights; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (advisory Guidelines and standards for procedural/substantive review)
- United States v. Delgado‑Martinez, 564 F.3d 750 (5th Cir. 2009) (standards for sentencing‑range calculation review)
- United States v. Cisneros‑Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of guideline application; clear‑error for factual findings)
- United States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2013) (context on presence of minors and plausible innocent explanations)
- United States v. Mata, 624 F.3d 170 (5th Cir. 2010) (bringing a child along for a planned crime is an affirmative act involving the minor)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (preservation requirement and plain‑error review standard)
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (applying plain‑error review to unpreserved sentencing objections)