United States v. Martinez
21-50358
| 5th Cir. | Mar 8, 2022Background:
- Defendant Francisco Resendiz Martinez was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine and sentenced to 292 months' imprisonment and five years supervised release.
- Officers stopped a vehicle and recovered 21.2 pounds of methamphetamine in a suitcase; Resendiz gave mixed answers during questioning (denied drugs, later said something illegal was in the vehicle in a "nervous voice").
- Coconspirator Johnny Casillas testified that he used Resendiz as a drug courier, told Resendiz he would be transporting drugs, and that Resendiz helped unload packaged drugs; intercepted calls/texts corroborated this.
- Resendiz sought to admit expert testimony from Dr. Deborah Ohanesian that he had limited English and intellectual limitations affecting his understanding of officers’ questions; the district court excluded that testimony.
- At sentencing, the court denied Resendiz a safety-valve reduction under U.S.S.G. §5C1.2 / 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(5) (finding he had not truthfully provided all information) and denied a §3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
- Resendiz appealed both the exclusion of expert testimony (challenging his conviction) and the sentencing rulings; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of proposed expert testimony (Dr. Ohanesian) | Exclusion proper; court has broad discretion and expert lacked linguistics expertise / testimony irrelevant | Expert would show limited English/intellectual limitations so Resendiz did not understand officer’s questions, undermining his admission | Affirmed — no manifest error; even if erroneous, any error was harmless given strong independent evidence (drugs recovered, coconspirator testimony, intercepted communications) |
| Safety-valve eligibility under §5C1.2 / 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(5) | District court properly found Resendiz did not "truthfully provide" all information (evasive statements; contradictions with government evidence) | Court never identified specifically how he failed; government speculation insufficient | Affirmed — factual finding that he was not fully truthful was not clearly erroneous |
| Acceptance-of-responsibility reduction (§3E1.1) | Denial appropriate because Resendiz contested essential factual element (knowledge/mens rea) by going to trial | He went to trial for non-factual issues (language/cognitive limitations), a "rare situation" that would still permit the reduction | Affirmed — district court’s denial was not without foundation (he contested factual guilt) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reed, 908 F.3d 102 (5th Cir. 2018) (district courts have wide latitude to exclude expert testimony)
- Williams v. Manitowoc Cranes, 898 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing exclusion of expert testimony)
- United States v. De Leon, 728 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2013) (harmless-error standard for exclusion of evidence in criminal trials)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 621 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2010) (inference of knowledge from control of vehicle when drugs are not hidden)
- United States v. Anchundia-Espinoza, 897 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 2018) (safety-valve eligibility and burden on defendant)
- United States v. Lima-Rivero, 971 F.3d 518 (5th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for Guidelines interpretation and factual findings)
- United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2011) (review of factual finding that defendant did not truthfully provide information for safety valve)
- United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 1995) (safety-valve inapplicable where defendant’s testimony contradicts government evidence)
- United States v. Smith, 977 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2020) ("exceedingly deferential" review for acceptance-of-responsibility rulings)