USA v. Juan Espinoza

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13877
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cr-00121-BJD-PDB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN ESPINOZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 2, 2016)
Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-13877 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page: 1 of 8

-- 1 of 8 --

2
Juan Espinoza appeals his total sentence of 120 months in prison after
pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). On
appeal, Espinoza primarily challenges the district court’s application of an
aggravating-role enhancement, pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (“U.S.S.G”) § 3B1.1(c). He also challenges the length of his statutory
minimum sentence. After careful review, we affirm.
I.
The presentence investigation report (“PSR”) described Espinoza’s offense
conduct as follows. Espinoza, in concert with Enrique Munoz and Luis Acosta,
conspired to smuggle methamphetamine into the United States from Mexico.
Espinoza procured the methamphetamine from a source in Mexico and then
provided the drugs to Acosta, who distributed the drugs in small amounts to street-
level customers. On one particular occasion, Espinoza recruited Acosta to make a
delivery of one kilogram of methamphetamine to an unknown individual in
Atlanta. In June 2014, Munoz acted as a mule for the drug-trafficking organization
at Espinoza’s request. Munoz traveled to California to pick up methamphetamine
from Espinoza’s Mexican source and bring it back to Florida. After Munoz was
arrested on the drive back to Florida, Espinoza had discussions with the Mexican
Case: 15-13877 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page: 2 of 8

-- 2 of 8 --

3
source, who told Espinoza that he wanted Munoz’s family information so that
“they” could “take care of this.”
Notably, in calculating his guideline range, the PSR applied a role
enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The PSR states that “Mr. Espinoza
was a leader in this conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in various locations
throughout the United States, and he recruited Luis Acosta and Enrique Munoz to
distribute methamphetamine for him.” Espinoza objected to the role enhancement,
claiming that he was simply an intermediary between his coconspirators and the
source of supply, and no evidence showed that he exercised any authority over
them. Espinoza did not object to any of the PSR’s factual statements.
The district court overruled Espinoza’s objection at sentencing and applied
the two-level § 3B1.1(c) enhancement. The court found that the evidence “in its
totality establishes a sufficient organization and coordinating role” for the role
enhancement to apply. With the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement, Espinoza’s applicable
guideline range was 168 to 210 months in prison. He faced a statutory minimum
term of ten years in prison. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). The government
recommended the statutory minimum, which is the sentence the district court
ultimately imposed. Espinoza now appeals.
II.
Case: 15-13877 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page: 3 of 8

-- 3 of 8 --

4
We review for clear error the district court’s application of an aggravating
role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). United States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d
1243, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2000). Clear error occurs when, in light of the entire
record, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed. United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878, 887 (11th Cir. 2009). A
sentencing court may rely on undisputed statements in the PSR. United States v.
Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 832 (11th Cir. 2006).
Section 3B1.1(c) provides for a two-level increase “[i]f the defendant was an
organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity” that involved
fewer than five participants and was not “otherwise extensive” within the meaning
of § 3B1.1(a) and (b).1 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The commentary to § 3B1.1 sets
forth several factors to assist the sentencing judge’s consideration of a defendant’s
role in the offense, including
the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of
participation in the commission of the offense, the
recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger
share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation
in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and
scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and
authority exercised over others.
1 If the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was “otherwise extensive,”
a defendant receives a four-level increase for being an “organizer or leader,” § 3B1.1(a), and a
three-level increase for being a “manager or supervisor,” § 3B1.1(b).
Case: 15-13877 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page: 4 of 8

-- 4 of 8 --

5
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4. There is no requirement that all of these factors have to
be present. United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022, 1026 (11th Cir. 2009). The
basic goal of § 3B1.1 is to account for relative responsibility between criminal
actors. See id. (“The sentence adjustment was plainly designed to address
‘concerns about relative responsibility.’”) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt.
backg’d).
Although a defendant’s status as a middleman or distributor is insufficient to
support a role enhancement, United States v. Yates, 990 F.2d 1179, 1182 (11th
Cir.1993), “the assertion of control or influence over only one individual is enough
to support a § 3B1.1(c) enhancement,” Jiminez, 224 F.3d at 1251; see Martinez,
584 F.3d at 1026 (for § 3B1.1 to apply, “there must be evidence that the defendant
exerted some control, influence or decision-making authority over another
participant in the criminal activity”). Evidence that the defendant recruited
participants, instructed participants, or wielded decision-making authority is
sufficient to support a role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. United States v.
Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1231-32 (11th Cir. 2010) (addressing § 3B1.1(a)).
Here, the district court did not clearly err in applying a two-level aggravating
role adjustment pursuant to § 3B1.1(c). Undisputed facts in the PSR establish that
Espinoza was more than simply a middleman or a distributor, and that he exercised
control or influence over at least one other participant in the conspiracy. See
Case: 15-13877 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page: 5 of 8

-- 5 of 8 --

6
Jiminez, 224 F.3d at 1251; Bennett, 472 F.3d at 832. According to the PSR,
Espinoza recruited both Acosta and Munoz to do specific actions in furtherance of
the conspiracy. With regard to Munoz in particular, the PSR states that Espinoza
“recruited Munoz to act as a mule for the organization.” At Espinoza’s request and
direction, Munoz traveled to California to pick up methamphetamine from
Espinoza’s Mexican source. Then, when Munoz was arrested, the source looked to
Espinoza to provide information about Munoz and Munoz’s family, suggesting that
the source viewed Munoz as Espinoza’s subordinate in the conspiracy. Moreover,
Espinoza admits that “Espinoza introduced Munoz to the scheme,” though he
disputes whether this qualifies as “recruitment.” Based on this evidence, the
district court properly applied an aggravating-role enhancement under § 3B1.1(c).
See, e.g., Caraballo, 595 F.3d at 1231-32.
Espinoza mainly argues that the undisputed facts in the PSR are insufficient
to establish any of the seven factors listed in the commentary to § 3B1.1.
However, these factors are relevant mainly to distinguish leadership or
organizational roles from managerial or supervisory roles. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1
cmt. n.4. But the distinction between leadership roles and management roles,
compare U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) with id. § 3B1.1(b), is “of less significance” when
applying § 3B1.1(c), which generally covers “relatively small criminal enterprises”
that tend not “to have clearly delineated divisions of responsibility,” id. § 3B1.1
Case: 15-13877 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page: 6 of 8

-- 6 of 8 --

7
cmt. backg’d. Moreover, as explained above, the undisputed facts adequately
demonstrate that Espinoza was in a position of greater responsibility relative to
Munoz at least in the criminal activity, and that Espinoza exercised some degree of
control or influence over him. See Martinez, 584 F.3d at 1026. The district court’s
decision to apply the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement was not clearly erroneous.
III.
Espinoza also argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable
because it is significantly higher than both the sentence his codefendants received
and the guideline range that would have applied had he been eligible for safety-
valve relief.
First, Espinoza is ineligible for the safety valve because the district court
properly applied the § 3B1.1(c) role enhancement. A defendant who was “an
organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, as determined
under the sentencing guidelines,” is not eligible for the safety valve. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f); United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1333-34 (11th Cir. 2003).
Second, because Espinoza was ineligible for the safety valve, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f), and because the government did not file a motion for a sentence
reduction based on substantial assistance, see id. § 3553(e), the district court lacked
any authority to sentence him below the ten-year mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States
Case: 15-13877 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page: 7 of 8

-- 7 of 8 --

8
v. Castaing-Sosa, 530 F.3d 1358, 1360-62 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that the
§ 3553(a) factors, including a concern for sentencing disparities between
coconspirators, “[do] not provide a legal basis for imposing a sentence below the
statutory mandatory minimum sentence”).
IV.
In sum, we affirm Espinoza’s sentence and the district court’s application of
an aggravating role enhancement under § 3B1.1(c).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-13877 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page: 8 of 8

-- 8 of 8 --