United States v. Rodolfo Rodriguez-Leos, 953 F.3d 320

Rodriguez-Leos, a nonimmigrant, bought 520 rounds of 7.62x39mm ammunition at an Academy Sports in McAllen the same day he entered the U.S.; agents later found the box hidden near a McAllen home.
After arrest, he admitted buying ammunition for a person called “El Chivo,” receiving $50 per prior purchase and previously delivering ammo at a Hidalgo Whataburger to an unidentified man who then smuggled it to Mexico.
The PSR applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(A) for possession with reason to believe it would be exported and cross-referenced to § 2X1.1/§ 2M5.2, producing a base offense level of 26; district court denied a § 2X1.1(b)(1) three-level attempt reduction and sentenced him to 50 months.
Rodriguez-Leos objected in writing that he did not complete all necessary acts under § 2X1.1 and appealed the denial of the three-level reduction.
The Fifth Circuit majority held the district court clearly erred in denying the reduction because Rodriguez-Leos was arrested well before he or any co-conspirator had completed acts necessary to export the ammunition; vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Judge Willett dissented, arguing the objection was not sufficiently preserved (plain-error review) and that the district court’s factual finding was plausible and should be affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rodriguez-Leos)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether Rodriguez preserved his § 2X1.1(b)(1) reduction claim / standard of review	His written PSR objection citing §2X1.1 language (stating he did not complete all necessary acts) preserved the claim; review should be for clear error	Objection targeted PSR enhancement, not a request for a 3-level reduction; he failed to press the point at sentencing so only plain-error review applies	Majority: preserved; applied clear-error review. Dissent: would apply plain-error review.
Entitlement to 3-level reduction under U.S.S.G. §2X1.1(b)(1) (attempt reduction)	He had only purchased and hidden the ammo; was not en route to deliver and lacked an imminent timeframe — he did not complete nor was about to complete all acts he believed necessary	Prior practice of same-day deliveries and expectation of an imminent call made completion reasonably imminent; district court’s finding that he was about to complete the offense was plausible	Majority: district court clearly erred; reduction warranted; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing. Dissent: would affirm.

United States v. Waskom, 179 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 1999) (articulates non-exhaustive Waskom factors for deciding §2X1.1 attempt/conspiracy reductions)
United States v. Soto, 819 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2016) (applied Waskom; denied reduction was clear error where defendant merely bought ammo and was not en route to deliver)
United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2009) (written objections that identify the gist of the claim can preserve issues for appeal)
United States v. Ocana, 204 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 2000) (preservation may be satisfied without exact guideline citation when substance matches)
United States v. Rodriguez, 630 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 2011) (clear-error standard for factual findings at sentencing)
United States v. Griffith, 522 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 2008) (review asks whether findings are implausible in light of the record)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error framework requiring showings that error affected substantial rights and seriously affected fairness of proceedings)
United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010) (discusses applicability of Waskom factors after guideline amendments)