United States v. Luis Cedillo-Narvaez
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14588
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Luis Fernando Cedillo-Narvaez participated in a conspiracy that kidnapped 18 undocumented migrants from a stash house and held them for ransom; he guarded, fed, and intimidated the hostages (including a 14‑year‑old) and carried a pellet gun.
- He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to hostage taking (18 U.S.C. § 1203(a) & 2).
- The PSR applied multiple Guidelines enhancements: +6 for ransom demand, +2 for dangerous weapon, +3 for minor victim (raised from +2), and +2 for vulnerable victims, yielding offense level 42 and guideline range 360 months–life.
- Luis objected in writing to the ransom and vulnerable‑victim enhancements but not to the dangerous‑weapon or minor‑victim enhancements; the district court overruled his objections, granted a 3‑level acceptance reduction, but sentenced him to 180 months to avoid disparity with his brother.
- Luis appealed; the Fifth Circuit reviewed preserved issues de novo or for plain error as appropriate and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Cedillo's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ransom enhancement (+6 under §2A4.1(b)(1)) | Ransom demand is an element of §1203 conspiracy, so applying the enhancement double counts | Ransom demand is not an element of §1203; §2A4.1 may separately increase offense level | Affirmed — ransom demand is not an element of hostage‑taking; no impermissible double counting here |
| Vulnerable‑victim enhancement (+2 under §3A1.1(b)(1)) | Enhancement improperly based on victims’ illegal immigration status, which defendant says is incorporated in related offense guidelines | Hostages’ illegal status is not an element of §1203 and is not accounted for in the §2A4.1 base offense level | Affirmed — applying §3A1.1(b)(1) based on undocumented status was not plain error |
| Minor‑victim enhancement (+3 under §2A4.1(b)(6)) | Enhancement inapplicable where a conspirator simply retained the child or where consideration was only an expected share of ransom (citing Alvarez‑Cuevas) | Quiroga (a non‑co‑conspirator) was paid $500 to house/feed the hostages, including the minor, satisfying guideline language | Affirmed — guideline unambiguously applies: minor placed in care/custody of person with no legal right in exchange for consideration; plain‑error review fails to show reversible error |
| Substantive reasonableness of 180‑month sentence | Sentence is disparate and excessive given other co‑defendants’ lower terms; he was an average participant | Other defendants pleaded to different charges (harboring) and were not similarly situated; district court considered §3553(a) and disparity concerns | Affirmed — sentence not substantively unreasonable; district court permissibly avoided unwarranted disparity among differently situated co‑defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework for appellate review of sentences)
- United States v. Dominguez‑Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324 (5th Cir.) (bifurcated appellate review of sentencing; plain‑error preservation principles)
- United States v. De Jesus‑Batres, 410 F.3d 154 (5th Cir.) (elements of hostage taking under §1203)
- United States v. Alvarez‑Cuevas, 415 F.3d 121 (1st Cir.) (interpretation of §2A4.1(b)(6) in the context of minor‑victim placement and consideration)
- United States v. Medina‑Argueta, 454 F.3d 479 (5th Cir.) (holding that an alien’s illegal status is incorporated into alien‑smuggling guideline and cannot support §3A1.1 enhancement in that context)
- United States v. Angeles‑Mendoza, 407 F.3d 742 (5th Cir.) (discussing when undocumented status may or may not support vulnerable‑victim enhancement)
- United States v. Carbajal, 290 F.3d 277 (5th Cir.) (statutory/construction principles govern interpretation of Sentencing Guidelines)