United States v. Krysta Gaines
707 F. App'x 834
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Krysta Nicole Gaines pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
- The presentence report (PSR), adopted by the district court, found Gaines actively assisted her co-participant in counter-surveillance and in conducting the drug transaction.
- The district court held Gaines accountable for the quantity of methamphetamine carried by both her and her co-participant.
- Gaines sought a mitigating-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, arguing she was an ordinary/less culpable participant.
- Gaines did not submit sworn testimony or other rebuttal evidence contradicting the PSR’s factual findings.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the district court clearly erred in denying the § 3B1.2 adjustment and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gaines was entitled to a mitigating-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 | Gaines: her assistance (delivery) showed she was an ordinary/less culpable participant | Government/District Court: PSR showed active counter-surveillance and joint accountability for drug quantity, showing greater culpability | Denied — no clear error in refusing the adjustment |
| Whether PSR findings could be adopted without further inquiry | Gaines: PSR may have improperly compared her only to co-participant and lacked articulation | Government: Gaines offered no sworn rebuttal; district court may adopt unrebutted PSR facts | Adopted PSR — district court properly relied on unrebutted PSR findings |
| Whether comment n.3(A) to § 3B1.2 applied (accountability only for personal quantity) | Gaines: delivery-only role should fit n.3(A) protection | Government: district court held her accountable for co-participant’s quantity, so n.3(A) inapplicable | Inapplicable — she was held accountable for co-participant’s quantity |
| Whether remand required for articulation or comparison to average participant | Gaines: unclear whether district compared her only to co-participant; requests remand | Government: factual record and procedural posture differ from Sanchez-Villarreal; no Rule 35 or intervening commentary issue here | No remand — factual findings plausible and defendant failed to meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d 940 (5th Cir. 1990) (district court may adopt PSR findings absent rebuttal)
- United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2016) (comment n.3(A) applies when defendant is accountable only for drugs personally transported or stored)
- United States v. Sanchez-Villarreal, 857 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2017) (remand where sentencing comparison and intervening guideline commentary issues existed)
- United States v. Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2017) (remand required only when defendant requests articulation of facts by district court)
- United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing district court’s denial of mitigating-role adjustment)
- United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2005) (plausibility standard for district court findings)
- United States v. Castro, 843 F.3d 608 (5th Cir. 2016) (defendant bears burden to prove by preponderance entitlement to mitigating-role adjustment)