United States v. Ruth Ramirez-Esparza
703 F. App'x 276
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Border Patrol found a Chevrolet Suburban near the Rio Grande; six men with bundles fled and 163.7 kg of marijuana was recovered.
- Ruth Ramirez-Esparza (driver) admitted she was hired by Juan Hernandez (who worked for Jose Quintero-Alvarado) to retrieve and deliver the marijuana for $2,500 and had done a similar pickup a week earlier.
- Ramirez-Esparza pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute ~163.7 kg of marijuana. PSR set base offense level 24 and declined a §3B1.2 mitigating-role adjustment, finding her role essential.
- Government agreed at sentencing she was a minor participant, but the district court denied the adjustment, citing her prior similar conduct and finding she was not substantially less culpable than the average participant.
- District court granted safety-valve relief, reduced her Guidelines range to 30–37 months, and sentenced her to 30 months. Ramirez-Esparza appealed the denial of the minor-role adjustment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ramirez-Esparza was entitled to a §3B1.2 mitigating-role adjustment | Ramirez-Esparza: she was a recruited transporter with no ownership, decision-making authority, and had limited, localized duties; prior similar conduct should not preclude analysis under the §3B1.2 factors | Government/District Court: her role was essential—she aggregated and transported a larger quantity of marijuana than individual carriers; prior similar pickup shows active, repeated participation and weighs against a reduction | Affirmed: district court did not clearly err; Ramirez-Esparza was not substantially less culpable than the average participant and denial of the adjustment stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193 (5th Cir.) (standard: factual findings on mitigating-role reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Perez-Solis, 709 F.3d 453 (5th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to show entitlement to mitigating-role adjustment)
- United States v. Torres-Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.) (district court not required to expressly weigh each §3B1.2 factor on the record)
- United States v. Castro, 843 F.3d 608 (5th Cir.) (repeated criminal activity may be considered; defendant must be substantially less culpable than the average participant)
- United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434 (5th Cir.) (§3B1.2 adjustment not warranted merely because defendant did less than others)