United States v. Martin Longoria, 958 F.3d 372

Martin Longoria, a felon, was charged with possession of multiple firearms; FBI allegedly found five high-capacity magazines attached to or near semiautomatic rifles during a warrantless apartment search.
Longoria moved to suppress the search evidence; the district court denied suppression (finding consent from Longoria’s wife).
To preserve the suppression issue, Longoria proceeded by stipulated bench trial and was found guilty; the PSR set a base offense level of 20 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) (semiautomatic capable of accepting large-capacity magazine).
The PSR withheld a full acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; the district court granted a two-level reduction but the prosecutor declined to move for the additional one-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), citing the need to prepare for a “full-blown suppression hearing.”
The court sentenced Longoria to 78 months (high end of 63–78 Guideline range); on appeal the court affirmed both the base offense level and the government’s decision not to seek the extra § 3E1.1(b) reduction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Longoria)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether the base offense level properly included firearms "capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine" (U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B))	Agent's statement about five high-capacity magazines is conclusory/unreliable; photos allegedly show only handgun magazines	PSR/agent had first-hand knowledge; sentencing court may rely on police investigation and credited agent over defendant’s rebuttal	Affirmed: district court not clearly erroneous in crediting agent; base offense level 20 proper
Whether the government was required to file a § 3E1.1(b) motion for an extra one-level reduction despite Longoria litigating a suppression motion	Amendment 775 to the Guidelines commentary limits permissible reasons to withhold the motion to those identified in § 3E1.1 (i.e., trial-preparation interests) and does not authorize withholding for suppression hearings	Longoria bound by Fifth Circuit precedent (Gonzales and progeny) allowing withholding when government must litigate suppression hearings; Amendment 775 did not clearly overrule that precedent	Affirmed: suppression-hearing preparation is a permissible interest to withhold the § 3E1.1(b) motion because Amendment 775 did not unequivocally overrule controlling Fifth Circuit caselaw

United States v. Gonzales, 19 F.3d 982 (5th Cir. 1994) (established that government may withhold § 3E1.1(b) motion when forced to litigate a suppression hearing)
United States v. Silva, 865 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2017) (recognized circuit confusion about Amendment 775 but followed precedent upholding withholding for suppression hearings)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (Guidelines commentary is authoritative absent inconsistency with statute or guideline)
United States v. Castillo, 779 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2015) (considered Amendment 775 in context of withholding motion for other procedural objections)
United States v. Moton, 951 F.3d 639 (5th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for sentencing factual findings — clear error)
United States v. Mata, 624 F.3d 170 (5th Cir. 2010) (defining clear-error review standard for factual findings)