United States v. Ricky Madrigal
671 F. App'x 245
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Richard (Ricky) Madrigal pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥500 g of methamphetamine; sentenced to 262 months imprisonment plus 5 years supervised release.
- Immediately after, Madrigal admitted violating supervised release in a prior case; court revoked and imposed 12 months consecutive.
- At sentencing in the conspiracy case, the district court applied a two-level importation enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) based on methamphetamine being imported from Mexico.
- Madrigal appealed the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement, arguing there was no evidence he knew the drugs were imported and that any importation was not relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3.
- The Government sought summary affirmance, arguing Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed Madrigal’s challenges; Madrigal did not concede the point.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, rejecting Madrigal’s arguments under circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of § 2D1.1(b)(5) importation enhancement | Madrigal: No evidence he knew methamphetamine was imported from Mexico; enhancement requires knowledge | Government: Enhancement applies regardless of defendant's knowledge per circuit precedent | Court: Enhancement applies without proof of defendant's knowledge (Serfass governs) |
| Whether importation must qualify as relevant conduct under § 1B1.3 | Madrigal: Importation must be relevant conduct to trigger enhancement | Government: Distribution/possession of imported methamphetamine alone is sufficient | Court: Distribution/possession of imported methamphetamine may trigger § 2D1.1(b)(5) even without additional relevant-conduct showing (Foulks) |
| Suitability of summary affirmance | Madrigal: Did not concede issues are foreclosed, so summary affirmance improper | Government: Issues are foreclosed by precedent, supporting summary affirmance | Court: Denied Government’s motion for summary affirmance because Madrigal did not concede; resolved merits on precedent anyway |
| Challenge to supervised-release revocation | Madrigal: (No challenge raised on appeal) | Government: N/A | Court: Arguments waived; revocation judgment not contested |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2012) (holding § 2D1.1(b)(5) applies regardless of defendant's knowledge of importation)
- United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding distribution/possession of imported methamphetamine can trigger the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement without additional relevant-conduct proof)
- United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2002) (panel cannot overrule prior panel precedent)
- United States v. Martinez, 263 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2001) (issues not raised in briefing are waived on appeal)
- United States v. Houston, 625 F.3d 871 (5th Cir. 2010) (scope and use of summary affirmance procedure)