United States v. Mario Barazza-Corral
683 F. App'x 303
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Mario Barazza-Corral pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting distribution of 5+ grams of methamphetamine and admitted a plea agreement.
- PSR assigned base offense level 32, added a two-level aggravating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), and gave a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, yielding total offense level 31.
- With Criminal History Category I, the advisory Guidelines range was 108–135 months; the district court imposed a 108-month within-Guidelines sentence.
- PSR relied on intercepted phone calls showing Barazza-Corral directing distribution, being called a "main supplier," arranging transport of methamphetamine, and threatening a co-defendant; no objections were filed to the PSR at sentencing.
- On appeal (plain-error review), Barazza-Corral argued the § 3B1.1(c) manager/organizer enhancement was unsupported and that he should instead receive a mitigating-role reduction under § 3B1.2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3B1.1(c) two-level enhancement (manager/organizer) was properly applied | Barazza-Corral: record lacks support for manager/organizer role | Government/District Court: PSR facts (phone intercepts, supplier role, arranging transport, ordering violence) support enhancement | Affirmed — no plain error in applying § 3B1.1(c) |
| Whether error in applying § 3B1.1(c) (if any) affected substantial rights | Barazza-Corral: any misapplication prejudiced his sentence | Government: if error, it benefited defendant because higher adjustments (§ 3B1.1(a)/(b)) could have applied | Rejected — even hypothetical error would not have prejudiced defendant |
| Whether defendant qualified for mitigating-role reduction under § 3B1.2 | Barazza-Corral: entitled to two-level mitigating-role adjustment | Government/District Court: facts show leadership/management, not minimal or minor role | Denied — mitigating adjustment fails where aggravating role upheld |
| Standard of review for appeal | Barazza-Corral: contesting PSR-based enhancement on appeal | Government: plain-error review applies due to no objection below | Court: plain-error standard applied and enhancement survived review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (held Guidelines advisory after Sixth Amendment error)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court must correctly calculate Guidelines range before sentencing)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (elements of plain-error review explained)
- United States v. Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2015) (district court may rely on factual statements in PSR)
- United States v. Murray, 648 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 2011) (plain-error review applied where no objection below)
- United States v. Huerta, 182 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 1999) (upholding offense-level enhancements if record as whole avoids miscarriage of justice)
- United States v. Pattan, 931 F.2d 1035 (5th Cir. 1991) (same principle on review of role adjustments)
- United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 2015) (defendant must show reasonable probability that but for error he would have received lower sentence)