United States v. Raul Cruz-Mendez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1286
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Cruz-Mendez was sentenced to 80 months for possessing 100 kg or more of marijuana on a vessel, plus 12 months for violating supervised release, total 92 months.
- The drugs were found after a Coast Guard interception of a panga off Ensenada, where agents recovered 568+ kilograms and Cruz-Mendez dumped bales overboard.
- At sentencing, Cruz-Mendez objected to a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(3)(C) (pilot/captain).
- The district court overruled the objection, finding Cruz-Mendez operated the panga and thus qualified for the enhancement.
- Criminal history had a IV category; with adjustments, the guideline range was 70–87 months for the marijuana offense, and the supervised-release violation added 12 months, consecutive.
- Cruz-Mendez appealed arguing the enhancement applied too narrowly and that the overall sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pilot/captain enhancement applies beyond traditional pilots | Cruz-Mendez argues narrowly that only pilots or captains with special skills qualify. | United States contends broad reading; operating a vessel with cargo suffices. | The enhancement applies broadly; Cruz-Mendez warranted the two-level increase. |
| Whether the total sentence is substantively reasonable | Cruz-Mendez contends the sentence is excessive below guidelines. | United States argues the district court reasonably varied and respected discretion. | The 92-month total is not substantively unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bautista-Montelongo, 618 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 2010) (upholds pilot/captain enhancement where defendant drove a contraband boat)
- United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2003) (applies enhancement beyond formal authority and skill)
- United States v. Senn, 129 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 1997) (plain language of statute governs; captain need not show special skills)
- United States v. Shill, 740 F.3d 1347 (9th Cir. 2014) (analysis begins with ordinary meaning of language; broad interpretation supported)
- United States v. Guerrero, 114 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 1997) (pilot does not require proof of special skill or authority)