United States v. Miguel Jimenez
687 F. App'x 395
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In July 2015 Campos was arrested at a Border Patrol checkpoint with 176 wrapped bundles of marijuana in the vehicle he was driving; he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute.
- The PSR set an advisory Guidelines range of 33–41 months (offense level 19, CH II) and stated there was insufficient information to assess Campos’s role; it did not recommend a role reduction.
- Campos sought a two-level minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), submitting a letter claiming he was paid to drive a vehicle provided by a contact called “Shadow” and had limited knowledge of the broader operation.
- The Government took no position on the role-adjustment issue; the district court heard oral argument, considered the PSR and Campos’s submissions, and denied the minor-role adjustment.
- The district court imposed a 33-month within-Guidelines sentence and three years’ supervised release; Campos appealed the denial of the adjustment and challenged substantive reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Campos was entitled to a 2‑level minor‑participant adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) | Campos argued he lacked knowledge of scope/destination, had no planning or decisionmaking role, lacked a proprietary interest, and was simply paid to perform tasks | The Government pointed to quantity of drugs, Campos’s prior similar convictions/admissions, and his initiation of contact with the organizer as evidence he was not substantially less culpable | Affirmed: district court’s factual finding denying the adjustment was plausible and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the 33‑month within‑Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | Campos argued his personal history/circumstances warranted a lower sentence and attacked the empirical basis of drug guidelines per Kimbrough | Government argued the sentence was within the properly calculated Guidelines; district court considered § 3553(a) factors; Kimbrough does not undermine presumption of reasonableness here | Affirmed: within‑Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable; Campos failed to show plain error or a clear abuse in balancing § 3553(a) factors |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gomez‑Valle, 828 F.3d 324 (5th Cir.) (standards of review for Guidelines application)
- United States v. Torres‑Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.) (burden and review for mitigating‑role adjustment)
- United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (5th Cir.) (clear‑error standard for factual findings at sentencing)
- United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434 (5th Cir.) (burden on defendant to prove role adjustment)
- United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135 (5th Cir.) (role analysis focuses on culpability not courier label)
- United States v. Quintero‑Leyva, 823 F.3d 519 (9th Cir.) (district court may deny or grant role reduction even if some factors cut the other way)
- United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir.) (district court’s choice between permissible views of evidence rarely clear error)
- United States v. Campos‑Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337 (5th Cir.) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑Guidelines sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (appellate review of within‑Guidelines sentences and deference to district court’s § 3553(a) balancing)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (discussing Guidelines’ empirical basis; does not automatically invalidate drug‑quantity adjustments)