United States v. Nelida Rodriguez
751 F.3d 1244
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Rodriguez participated in a multi‑year mortgage‑fraud conspiracy: opening P.O. Boxes, acting as a straw buyer, redirecting mortgage documents, and making mortgage payments to conceal fraud that caused multi‑million dollar losses to lenders.
- Indicted on 20 counts; pled guilty to conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1349), mail fraud and wire fraud counts without a written plea agreement; no contemporaneous objection at plea.
- Presentence report attributed over $12 million in losses to Rodriguez (PSI initially cited >$19M); offense level adjustments included loss, multiple‑victim and sophisticated‑means enhancements; 3‑level reduction for acceptance of responsibility; total offense level later set at 28 (Guideline range 78–97 months).
- District court sustained Rodriguez’s objection to a managerial/supervisor enhancement, denied a minor‑role reduction, imposed a below‑guidelines sentence of 70 months, and deferred restitution for later determination.
- After procedural delays (and Supreme Court decision in Dolan), an amended judgment entered over two years later imposing joint and several restitution of $7,941,854.42; Rodriguez appealed challenging plea validity, sentencing enhancements/minor‑role denial, and the restitution timing/amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rodriguez) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/competence of guilty plea under Rule 11 and due process | Plea was involuntary/unknowing because Rodriguez suffered mental illness, was medicated, and the court failed to fully protect Rule 11 rights and establish competence | Colloquy and counsel statements show Rodriguez understood proceedings, could consult with counsel, and voluntarily pled; no contemporaneous objections | Affirmed. No plain error: thorough plea colloquy showed competence and Rule 11 compliance; factual basis sufficient. |
| Loss amount and 20‑level Guidelines enhancement (U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(b)(1)) | Challenges attribution of >$12M losses to Rodriguez and methodology used to calculate losses | Government proved attributable loss by preponderance (spreadsheet, exhibits, agent testimony); relevant conduct doctrine holds conspirators responsible for foreseeable co‑conspirator losses | Affirmed. District court’s loss finding not clearly erroneous; government met burden. |
| Two 2‑level enhancements: multiple victims and sophisticated means | (Raised for first time on appeal) These enhancements were improper | PSI and sentencing evidence established >10 lender victims and use of complex concealment methods (straw buyers, shell entities, mail diversion) | Affirmed. No plain error: enhancements supported by PSI and sentencing record. |
| Minor‑role reduction (U.S.S.G. §3B1.2) | Rodriguez was a low‑level assistant and entitled to a 2‑level minor‑role reduction; district judge applied an improper categorical rule | District court made fact‑specific comparison to co‑conspirators and found Rodriguez’s role essential; judge did not apply per se bar | Affirmed. Clear‑error review upheld individualized factual finding denying minor‑role reduction. |
| Restitution: delayed amended judgment and amount | Two‑year delay deprived court of jurisdiction and violated due process; restitution amount lacked evidentiary support | Under Dolan court retains authority if intent to order restitution was clear; delay caused no prejudice and restitution was proven by preponderance (agent testimony, lender declarations) | Affirmed. Dolan controls; no jurisdictional or due process bar and restitution amount supported by reliable evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010) (sentencing court retains power to order restitution after 90‑day limit if it clearly intended to order restitution)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (Rule 11 errors not preserved in district court reviewed for plain error)
- Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant must show reasonable probability that, but for Rule 11 error, plea would not have been entered)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (competence standard for pleading guilty equals competence to stand trial)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (Dusky competence standard articulated)
- United States v. Rodriguez‑De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (framework for assessing role‑in‑offense adjustments and comparison to relevant conduct)
- United States v. Dabbs, 134 F.3d 1071 (11th Cir. 1998) (government must prove attributable loss by preponderance of the evidence)
- United States v. Cataldo, 171 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 1999) (contextual reading of district judge’s oral statements; avoid reading extemporaneous remarks as categorical rules)
- United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005) (Rule 11 core principles and standards for plea validity)