United States v. Mario Murillo-Mora
703 F. App'x 435
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Three defendants (Murillo-Mora, Gonzalez-Torres, Richardson) pleaded guilty to methamphetamine-related conspiracies arising from a large-scale trafficking operation in Iowa.
- Murillo-Mora cooperated under a plea agreement but the Government declined to move for a §5K1.1 reduction, saying he had recanted and was no longer usable; Murillo-Mora’s counsel moved to compel that the Government file the §5K1.1 motion, but the district court struck the motion for failure to file a supporting brief under local Rule 7(d).
- At Murillo‑Mora’s sentencing hearing the court denied a downward variance and imposed a within‑Guidelines 262‑month sentence, but did not personally address Murillo‑Mora or permit allocution.
- Gonzalez‑Torres’s PSR (to which he did not object) described post‑arrest involvement in distribution while he was on pretrial release in another case; the district court imposed a within‑Guidelines 168‑month sentence after rejecting a variance.
- Richardson was designated a career offender, received a Guidelines range of 262–327 months, and was sentenced to 262 months; the district court commented it would impose the same sentence even if future, retroactive guideline reductions occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by striking Murillo‑Mora’s motion to compel §5K1.1 motion for noncompliance with local rules | Murillo‑Mora: counsel’s motion contained the necessary grounds so a separate brief was unnecessary | Government/District Ct: counsel violated Local Rule 7(d) requiring a separate brief; court may enforce its rules | No abuse of discretion; striking motion was proper because counsel conceded noncompliance with the local rule |
| Whether failure to permit Murillo‑Mora allocution requires resentencing | Murillo‑Mora: was denied his Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) right to personally speak before sentencing | Government: urged affirmance on other grounds (but allocution requirement self‑executing) | Vacated and remanded for resentencing because denial of allocution is clear error requiring remand |
| Whether Gonzalez‑Torres’s 168‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable for relying on alleged drug dealing while on pretrial release | Gonzalez‑Torres: insufficient evidence that communications reflected dealing (could be personal use); court gave undue weight to this factor | Government/District Ct: PSR described distribution activity after arrest; Gonzalez‑Torres did not object to those PSR facts; court permissibly weighed recidivism risk heavily | No abuse of discretion; district court properly considered unobjected‑to PSR facts and did not err in weighing §3553(a) factors |
| Whether district court abused discretion by indicating it would ignore hypothetical future, retroactive guideline amendments when sentencing Richardson | Richardson: court’s pre‑judgment of possible amendments was improper | Government/District Ct: comments were hypothetical; actual sentence is uncontested | No reversible error; comments were irrelevant to the valid, contested sentence and appellate court will not opine on unissued amendments |
Key Cases Cited
- Braxton v. Bi‑State Dev. Agency, 728 F.2d 1105 (8th Cir. 1984) (district courts may enforce local rules and determine acceptable departures)
- Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301 (1961) (defendant’s personal right of allocution is important and may not be waived by counsel)
- United States v. Walker, 896 F.2d 295 (8th Cir. 1990) (failure to comply with Rule 32’s allocution requirement requires remand)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (standards for reviewing substantive reasonableness of a sentence)
- United States v. Oaks, 606 F.3d 530 (8th Cir. 2010) (unchallenged PSR facts may be accepted as true for sentencing)
- United States v. Beane, 584 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2009) (appellate court will not review hypothetical, unissued sentencing changes)