United States v. Rodriguez
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 202
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Rodriguez pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute over 50 grams of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(B).
- Sentencing calculated on more than 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine; enhancements for rifle, leadership, and importation; and a downward departure for assistance.
- Sentence set at the bottom-of-range halved, totaling 180 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release.
- District court ruled that the offense involved the importation of methamphetamine and that the quantity exceeded 1.5 kilograms.
- Rodriguez appeals contending the offense did not involve importation and the quantity determination is unsupported; the government cross-appeals? (not needed)
- Court affirms both challenged determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the offense involve importation of methamphetamine? | Rodriguez argues importation was complete before possession. | Rodriguez contends importation was not involved. | Yes; offense involved importation. |
| Is knowledge (mens rea) required for § 2D1.1(b)(4)? | Knowledge is required; no evidence Rodriguez knew of importation. | Knowledge need not be established to decide; evidence shows awareness. | Knowledge not necessary to decide; sufficient evidence Rodriguez knew drugs were imported. |
| Was the 1.66 kg quantity supported by the record? | Eight ounces bought on multiple occasions implies 1.66 kg. | Purity and seized amount undermine the total quantity. | No clear error; record supports 1.66 kg. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gray, 626 F.2d 494 (5th Cir.1980) (importation is a continuous crime until final destination)
- United States v. Perez-Oliveros, 479 F.3d 779 (11th Cir.2007) (2D1.1(b)(4) scope broader than importation; context matters)
- United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir.2008) (reviewing factual findings for clear error)