United States v. Julian Martinez-Rodriguez, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8733

Background

Martinez pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; PSR recommended two § 3B1.1 (organizer/leader) and two § 2D1.1(b)(14)(B)(i) (involving a minor) enhancements, producing an offense level of 44 (CHC III) and a life-range.
Martinez objected in writing to the § 3B1.1 enhancement and to the § 2D1.1 enhancement on the ground he was unaware his son was involved; he did not argue that § 2D1.1(b)(14)(B)(i) requires a § 3B1.1 enhancement.
At sentencing the district court found Martinez was not an organizer and removed the § 3B1.1 enhancement; Martinez did not timely press the § 2D1.1(b)(14)(B)(i) objection at the hearing.
The district court nevertheless applied the § 2D1.1(b)(14)(B)(i) enhancement, granted acceptance-credit and a two-point criminal history deduction, producing total offense level 41 (CHC II) and a Guidelines range of 360 months to life; Martinez received 360 months.
On appeal both parties conceded the § 2D1.1(b)(14)(B)(i) application was erroneous under the 2012 Guidelines (that enhancement applies only if § 3B1.1 was applied); the Fifth Circuit reviewed Martinez’s failure-to-preserve that specific objection for plain error.
The court found plain error that affected Martinez’s substantial rights under Molina-Martinez because the incorrect higher range was applied and sentence was imposed within that range, and exercised its discretion under the fourth plain-error prong to vacate and remand for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Martinez)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't)	Held
Whether Martinez preserved the argument that § 2D1.1(b)(14)(B)(i) only applies if § 3B1.1 is imposed	Written objection preserved the argument for appeal; therefore review should be for clear error	Martinez’s written objection was limited (knowledge of son); he did not clearly raise the §3B1.1-dependency claim at sentencing, so objection was not preserved	Not preserved; appellate review is for plain error
Whether the district court’s application of § 2D1.1(b)(14)(B)(i) was plain error affecting substantial rights	Applying the enhancement produced a higher Guidelines range and sentence; prejudiced Martinez	Government conceded the enhancement application was error but argued other sentencing facts mitigate need for remand	Plain error affected substantial rights under Molina-Martinez because wrong higher range was applied and sentence fell within it
Whether the fourth prong of plain-error review (fairness/integrity) warrants remedying the forfeited error	Sentencing disparity (360 vs. lower correct range) and receipt of minimum sentence under erroneous range supports remand	Government pointed to other district-court errors (criminal history point removal) and aggravating facts suggesting remand unnecessary	Court exercised discretion to notice error under the fourth prong and remanded for resentencing
Whether district court’s criminal-history point removal affects remedy	Martinez argued overall sentencing result was prejudiced by erroneous application of enhancements	Government noted district court also erred by removing criminal-history points, which lessened the sentencing disparity caused by §2D1.1 error	Criminal-history point removal was error but harmless for the level Martinez received; on remand the court must not deduct points improperly and should use §4A1.3 if departing

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Molina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Sup. Ct.) (applying incorrect Guidelines range that produced the sentence suffices to show prejudice under plain-error review)
United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270 (5th Cir.) (written objection must clearly alert district court to the nature of the alleged error to preserve issue)
United States v. Price, 516 F.3d 285 (5th Cir.) (remand warranted where sentencing under erroneous guideline produced materially higher sentence and defendant received bottom of that range)
United States v. Pratt, 728 F.3d 463 (5th Cir.) (defendant must show reasonable probability of lesser sentence to satisfy prejudice prong of plain-error review)
United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.) (standard for plain-error review of unpreserved sentencing objections)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (Sup. Ct.) (plain-error standard framing)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Sup. Ct.) (fourth-prong discretion in plain-error review is fact-specific)
United States v. Jasso, 634 F.3d 305 (5th Cir.) (district court lacks authority to alter calculated criminal-history points)
United States v. Solis, 675 F.3d 795 (5th Cir.) (criminal-history score calculation is not discretionary under §4A1.1)