United States v. Ricardo Hinojosa
749 F.3d 407
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Ricardo Hinojosa pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 211 kg of marijuana; the PSR attributed an additional 2,648.8 kg (total 2,860.8 kg) as relevant conduct.
- The increased drug quantity raised his Guidelines base offense level to 34 (Guidelines range 151–188 months); mandatory minimum tied to his count of conviction was five years.
- The PSR attributed three additional incidents to Hinojosa (a 1,587.6 kg Pharr warehouse theft, an 816.2 kg truck-and-trailer seizure, and a 245 kg seizure) and described a recurring scheme of arranging shipments, stealing most of them, and turning the remainder over to cooperating police.
- While charged but before pleading, Hinojosa made a phone call instructing his sister to coach a co-defendant and wrote a false five-page letter to the court; the PSR recommended a two-level obstruction enhancement and denial of acceptance of responsibility.
- At sentencing the district court adopted the PSR, applied the obstruction enhancement, denied the acceptance reduction, and imposed 151 months’ imprisonment. Hinojosa appealed, raising: (1) Alleyne-based Sixth Amendment argument about jury findings for drug quantities; (2) sufficiency and reliability of evidence for relevant-conduct quantities; (3) challenge to the obstruction enhancement; and (4) an alleged breach of the plea agreement by the government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hinojosa) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial finding of additional drug quantities violated Alleyne by increasing a mandatory minimum | The district court’s attribution of ≥1,000 kg effectively triggered a higher mandatory minimum (10 years) and thus required a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt | The offense of conviction carried a 5-year mandatory minimum; Guidelines-relevant-conduct findings do not convert into elements requiring jury finding under Alleyne | No plain or obvious error; Alleyne does not require jury findings for Guidelines relevant-conduct that do not change the statutory minimum applicable to the count of conviction; affirmed |
| Whether the PSR’s additional drug-quantity findings lacked sufficient, reliable evidence | Sources were unreliable (confidential informant, undercover ID, statements of arrestee); defendant met burden to rebut PSR | Defendant bears burden to show PSR materially untrue; district court may find relevant conduct by preponderance of sufficiently reliable evidence | Affirmed; defendant’s objections were mere denials and did not rebut PSR by preponderance |
| Whether the government breached the plea agreement by advocating for obstruction enhancement and not recommending acceptance reduction | Plea promised government would recommend 2-level acceptance reduction; government breached by advocating enhancement and not recommending reduction | Plea conditioned recommendation on defendant’s ‘‘clearly demonstrat[ing]’’ acceptance; defendant’s post-charge false letter and instructions showed non-acceptance; even if breach, no prejudice—court would have denied reduction anyway | No reversible error; even if breach occurred, defendant cannot show prejudice; district court would have applied enhancement and denied reduction |
| Whether obstruction-of-justice enhancement was improper | Letter and phone call did not materially affect investigation; government must prove material effect (relying on Morales-Sanchez) | Guideline §3C1.1 covers false statements to the court and unlawful influence of co-defendants; materiality is satisfied if statements would tend to influence; Morales-Sanchez limitation (contemporaneous with arrest) does not apply | Affirmed; enhancement supported by false court letter and attempt to influence co-defendant — enhancement appropriate under §3C1.1 |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase a statutory mandatory minimum are elements that must be found by a jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact that increases the penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing Guidelines are advisory; judge may consider relevant facts not found by jury)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard and prejudice requirement for unpreserved sentencing claims)
- United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 2009) (broad definition of same course of conduct/common scheme or plan for drug cases)
- United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2013) (district court may rely on preponderance of sufficiently reliable evidence in PSR; defendant must show PSR materially untrue)
- United States v. Morales-Sanchez, 609 F.3d 637 (5th Cir. 2010) (limitation on obstruction enhancement when conduct is contemporaneous with arrest)
- United States v. Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for preserved sentencing objections)