United States v. Timothy Nimerfroh
16-11545
| 5th Cir. | Jan 8, 2018Background
- Timothy Eric Nimerfroh pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥50 grams of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment (with total offense level 39, CHC VI, Guidelines range 360–life but capped at statutory max 480 months).
- The PSR applied three two-level enhancements: (1) U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) leadership/organizer (based on two associates, Frye and Allen, assisting him), (2) U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining premises (hotel rooms he rented used for distribution), and (3) U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) for importation (PSR relied on defendant’s statement that he dealt with the “cartel”).
- Nimerfroh objected to all three enhancements at sentencing; the district court overruled the objections and found each enhancement supported by a preponderance of the evidence (the importation finding relied on inference from the word “cartel”).
- On appeal he argued the court clearly erred in imposing the leadership, premises, and importation enhancements.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the leadership and premises enhancements as plausible factual findings but reversed the importation enhancement as not supported by sufficient evidence; the court held the importation error was harmless because the Guidelines range would have been the same without it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership enhancement (§ 3B1.1(c)) | PSR facts insufficient to show Nimerfroh organized/managed others | Nimerfroh: did not exercise control over Frye and Allen; enhancement not warranted | Affirmed — record plausibly shows he managed Frye and Allen, so two‑level enhancement proper |
| Premises enhancement (§ 2D1.1(b)(12)) | Premises (hotel rooms) were primarily residence, not maintained for distribution | Nimerfroh: distribution use was incidental; primary use was living quarters | Affirmed — court plausibly found one primary use was distribution; enhancement not clearly erroneous |
| Importation enhancement (§ 2D1.1(b)(5)) | Reference to dealing with a “cartel” proves drugs were imported from Mexico | Nimerfroh: bare mention of “cartel” insufficient to show importation; could be domestically produced | Reversed — insufficient evidence to infer importation from “cartel” reference alone; enhancement clearly erroneous |
| Sentencing impact / harmless error | N/A | Nimerfroh sought relief based on importation error | Harmless — even without importation enhancement the Guidelines range (360–life, capped 360–480 months) and sentence would remain the same; affirmed overall sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d 260 (5th Cir.) (role-in-offense factual findings reviewed for clear error; inferences from record permissible)
- United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (5th Cir.) (sentencing factual findings plausible in light of whole record standard)
- United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (5th Cir.) (application notes for § 3B1.1 and standards for leadership-role enhancement)
- United States v. Serfass, 684 F.3d 548 (5th Cir.) (preponderance-of-evidence burden for sentencing enhancements; clear-error review)
- United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914 (5th Cir.) (upholding importation enhancement where PSR expressly stated drugs were imported from Mexico)
- United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, 714 F.3d 306 (5th Cir.) (harmless-error principles applied to sentencing enhancements)
- United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750 (5th Cir.) (not every procedural sentencing error requires reversal)