United States v. Roger Anchundia-Espinoza
897 F.3d 629
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Anchundia-Espinoza (Ecuadorian) and three others were hired to transport cocaine by boat; they received $1,000 up front and were promised more upon delivery.
- The group boarded a larger vessel, transferred cocaine to the Imemsa, scuttled their smaller boat, and attempted to travel toward Mexico; U.S. authorities intercepted the Imemsa about 95 nautical miles SW of the Mexico/Guatemala border.
- Authorities found 35 bales and another bale in the water; DEA testing showed 681.6 kg of cocaine. Seven men were aboard; Anchundia-Espinoza pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine aboard a vessel in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 70503 (and related statutes). No plea agreement.
- PSR assigned a base offense level of 38 (for 681.6 kg), +2 for captain/navigator role, reduced to 37 for acceptance of responsibility; criminal-history I produced a Guidelines range of 210–262 months. PSR stated safety-valve did not apply because conviction was under § 70503.
- District court denied safety-valve relief (concluding § 3553(f) applies only to the statutes it enumerates and § 70503 is not an offense "under" 21 U.S.C. § 960) and denied a minor-participant reduction (finding Anchundia-Espinoza similarly culpable to co-defendants). The court varied downward and sentenced him to 175 months.
Issues
| Issue | Anchundia-Espinoza's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) despite conviction under 46 U.S.C. § 70503 | § 3553(f) is ambiguous; because § 960 (which § 3553 references) provides penalties for § 70503, safety valve should apply | § 3553(f) applies only to offenses "under" the specific statutes it lists; § 70503 is a separate offense penalized by § 960 and thus not covered | Safety valve does not apply; § 3553(f) is unambiguous and does not cover convictions under § 70503 |
| Whether defendant is entitled to a minor-participant reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 | He played a lesser role relative to many other (some unindicted) conspirators and thus is minor | District court reasonably compared him to known co-defendants; his role (captaining boats, lengthy participation) was substantial | No minor-participant reduction; factual finding that he was not peripheral is not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Phillips, 382 F.3d 489 (5th Cir.) (refuses to expand § 3553(f) beyond listed statutes)
- United States v. Gamboa-Cardenas, 508 F.3d 491 (9th Cir.) (safety valve does not apply to § 70503 convictions)
- United States v. Pertuz-Pertuz, 679 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir.) (safety valve limited to offenses "under" enumerated statutes)
- United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143 (5th Cir.) (standard: defendant bears burden to establish safety-valve eligibility)
- United States v. Kiekow, 872 F.3d 236 (5th Cir.) (sentencing factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.) (minor/minimal participant factual determination reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Treft, 447 F.3d 421 (5th Cir.) (explaining § 5C1.2 safety-valve effect on statutory minimum)
- United States v. Lopez, 264 F.3d 527 (5th Cir.) (defendant may qualify for sentence below statutory minimum if § 3553(f) criteria met)
- Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992) (textualist canon: presume statute means what it says)