Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-14-50154/USCOURTS-ca9-14-50154-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raul Antonio Cruz-Mendez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RAUL ANTONIO CRUZ-MENDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 14-50154

14-50157

D.C. Nos.

13-CR-3970-LAB

08-CR-3618-LAB

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 21, 2015*

Pasadena, California

Filed January 27, 2016

Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Jacqueline H. Nguyen,

Circuit Judges, and Michael A. Ponsor, Senior District

Judge.**

Opinion by Judge Ponsor

* The panel unanimously concluded this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

** The Honorable Michael A. Ponsor, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

 Case: 14-50154, 01/27/2016, ID: 9842032, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 1 of 9
2 UNITED STATES V. CRUZ-MENDEZ

SUMMARY***

Criminal Law

The panel affirmed a sentence for possession of 100

kilograms or more of marijuana on a vessel, and a

consecutive sentence for violation of the terms of supervised

release imposed in a prior case.

The panel held that the district court did not err in

applying a two-level “pilot/captain” enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(3)(C), which applies where the

defendant “acted as a pilot, copilot, captain, navigator, flight

officer, or any other operation officer aboard any craft or

vessel carrying a controlled substance.” The panel rejected

the defendant’s assertion that, because he simply operated a

panga by standing at the tiller of the outboard motor, he

lacked the requisite special skills or authority on the vessel to

support the imposition of the enhancement. The panel

explained that the fact that the Guidelines commentary

acknowledges that pilots and boat captains may use “special

skills” also subject to an adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3

and dictates that the two sections may not both apply to the

same conduct does not mean that § 2D1.1(b)(3) can only

apply where such special skills are demonstrated by a pilot or

captain.

The panel concluded that the 92-month total sentence was

not substantively unreasonable.

 

*** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 14-50154, 01/27/2016, ID: 9842032, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 2 of 9
UNITED STATES V. CRUZ-MENDEZ 3

COUNSEL

Sarah R. Weinman, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc.,

San Diego, California, for Defendant-Appellant.

Laura E. Duffy, United States Attorney; Bruce R. Castetter

and Steve Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, San

Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

OPINION

PONSOR, Senior District Judge:

Defendant Raul Cruz-Mendez received an eighty-month

sentence after pleading guilty to possessing one-hundred

kilograms or more of marijuana on a vessel. In the same

sentencing proceeding, he received a consecutive twelvemonth sentence for violation of the terms of supervised

release imposed in a prior case. On appeal, he raises two

issues. First, Cruz-Mendez challenges the district court’s

imposition of a two-level enhancement to his offense level for

the marijuana conviction, as contemplated under U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1(b)(3)(C) (the “pilot/captain” enhancement). Second,

he contends that the combined sentence of ninety-two months

was substantively unreasonable.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and

18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The underlying facts are not significantly disputed. On

October 5, 2013, Customs and Border Protection agents

 Case: 14-50154, 01/27/2016, ID: 9842032, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 3 of 9
4 UNITED STATES V. CRUZ-MENDEZ

aerially observed two men operating a so-called “panga”

vessel1off the coast of Ensenada, Mexico, heading northwest

toward the United States. They also spotted several bales of

suspected narcotics visible in the open hull. Shortly

afterwards, a U.S. Coast Guard vessel initiated an

interception of the panga, during which the helicopter crew

observed defendant and another man dumping bales

overboard. Warning shots from the Coast Guard vessel, and

finally disabling gunfire directed at the engine, ultimately

succeeded in bringing the panga to a stop, whereupon law

enforcement agents recovered thirty-one bales of marijuana

totaling over 568 kilograms. Cruz-Mendez and a codefendant were arrested for possession of marijuana with

intent to distribute, on a vessel, in violation of 46 U.S.C.

§§ 70503 and 70506. At the time of his arrest, Cruz-Mendez

was on supervised release for a 2008 conviction for

transporting undocumented aliens in a vessel, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1324.2

On December 5, 2013, Cruz-Mendez pled guilty to the

marijuana charge, and on January 6, 2014, he admitted to a

violation of the terms of supervised release imposed in

connection with his 2008 conviction. A consolidated

sentencing hearing took place on April 1, 2014.

The presentence report filed by the probation department

included application of the two-level “pilot/captain”

enhancement for the specific offense characteristic of acting

1 A panga boat is “an open-bow vessel commonly used for smuggling.” 

United States v. Ramos-Atondo, 732 F.3d 1113, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013).

2 Cruz-Mendez had one additional earlier conviction in 2007 for

possession with intent to sell marijuana.

 Case: 14-50154, 01/27/2016, ID: 9842032, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 4 of 9
UNITED STATES V. CRUZ-MENDEZ 5

“as a pilot, copilot, captain, navigator, flight officer, or any

other operation officer aboard any craft or vessel carrying a

controlled substance[.]” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(3)(C). With

the enhancement, the probation department calculated CruzMendez’s guideline range to be seventy to eighty-seven

months. After Cruz-Mendez objected to the two-level

increase, the probation department filed an addendum

asserting that, because Cruz-Mendez and his co-defendant

possessed the skill of being able to pilot a vessel and

exercised that skill in furtherance oftheir crime, the two-level

increase was warranted. The government recommended a

sentence of sixty months, based on a sentencing guidelines

range of sixty to seventy-one months, which did not include

the two-level upward adjustment.

At the hearing, the district court overruledCruz-Mendez’s

objection to the application of the “pilot/captain”

enhancement. Specifically, Cruz-Mendez argued that he and

his co-defendant had equal responsibility on the boat, with

each piloting the boat at different points of the voyage. The

court determined that, by the Coast Guard’s observation and

by his own admission, Cruz-Mendez was operating the panga

and was therefore the pilot of the vessel under the plain text

of the enhancement. After recognizing the parties’ agreement

that the starting offense level was twenty-eight, the district

court increased the level by two with the application of the

“pilot/captain” enhancement.

With a three-level reduction for acceptance of

responsibility and a four-level reduction based on the

district’s “fast track” program, the offense level was twentythree, with a criminal history category of IV, generating a

sentencing guideline range of seventy to eighty-seven

months. The court imposed upon Cruz-Mendez a sentence in

 Case: 14-50154, 01/27/2016, ID: 9842032, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 5 of 9
6 UNITED STATES V. CRUZ-MENDEZ

the middle of this range: eighty months. With regard to the

violation of supervised release the district court found,

without objection, that the sentencing guideline range was

fifteen to twenty-one months, but varied to a below-guideline

sentence of twelve months, consecutive to the eighty-month

sentence on the marijuana charge, resulting in a total of

ninety-two months.

Cruz-Mendez filed a timely notice of appeal contesting

both the application of the “pilot/captain” enhancement and

the substantive reasonableness of the total sentence.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the district court’s interpretation of the

Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its application of the

Guidelines to the facts of the case for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Garcia-Guerrero, 635 F.3d 435, 438 (9th

Cir. 2011). We review the substantive reasonableness of a

sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Autery,

555 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2009).

DISCUSSION

A. Interpretation and Application of the Enhancement

Cruz-Mendez contends that the district court’s use of the

“pilot/captain” enhancement to increase his offense level was

legal error because the plain meaning of the terms “pilot,”

“captain,” “navigator,” and “officer,” as well as the

Guidelines commentary, structure, and legislative history, all

support a narrow reading of the enhancement such that it

applies only to individuals either who occupied a position of

authority on the vessel or who possessed “special skills”

 Case: 14-50154, 01/27/2016, ID: 9842032, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 6 of 9
UNITED STATES V. CRUZ-MENDEZ 7

aboard the ship. Cruz-Mendez asserts that, because he simply

operated a panga by standing at the tiller of the outboard

motor, he lacked the requisite special skills or authority on

the vessel to support the imposition of the enhancement.

The proper application of a “pilot/captain” enhancement

is an issue of first impression in this circuit. We agree with

every other circuit court to consider this issue – the First,

Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh – and hold that the proper

reading of the “pilot/captain” enhancement is not as

constrained as Cruz-Mendez suggests. See United States v.

Bautista-Montelongo, 618 F.3d 464, 466–67 (5th Cir. 2010)

(adopting the holdings of the First, Seventh, and Eleventh

Circuit Courts of Appeals that the enhancement applied to a

defendant who “drove a boat containing contraband”); United

States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1329 (11th Cir. 2003)

(declining to adopt a technical definition of “captain” and

applying it to a defendant who operated a boat); United States

v. Senn, 129 F.3d 886, 896–97 (7th Cir. 1997) (stating that

“the plain language of the statute carries the day” and

declining to find that a pilot or captain must have special

skills), abrogated on other grounds, United States v.

Vizcarra, 668 F.3d 516, 523 n.2 (7th Cir. 2012); United

States v. Guerrero, 114 F.3d 332, 346 (1st Cir. 1997) (finding

that the term “pilot” did not require proof of any special skill

or authority, only evidence that the person steered the vessel).

The plain language of § 2D1.1(b)(3)(C), which calls for

a two-level enhancement where “the defendant acted as a

pilot, copilot, captain, navigator, flight officer, or any other

operation officer aboard any craft or vessel carrying a

controlled substance” (emphasis added), is stronglyindicative

of a broad scope, not dependent on a finding of any particular

formal training or type of boat. See United States v. Shill,

 Case: 14-50154, 01/27/2016, ID: 9842032, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 7 of 9
8 UNITED STATES V. CRUZ-MENDEZ

740 F.3d 1347, 1351 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that “analysis

begins and ends with the ordinary meaning of the statutory

language”). The fact that the Guidelines commentary

acknowledges that pilots and boat captains may use “special

skills” also subject to a two-level adjustment under § 3B1.3

and dictates that the two sections may not both apply to the

same conduct does not mean, as Cruz-Mendez would have it,

that § 2D1.1(b)(3)(C) can only applywhere such special skills

are demonstrated by a pilot or captain. Such a reading would

lead to complete overlap between the two sections, and would

also ignore situations where an individual obviously assumed

the role of pilot or captain but demonstrated little skill in

doing so. See Senn, 129 F.3d at 890 (upholding application

of the enhancement where defendant was listed as captain on

customs documents and directed boat operations, but journey

involved several stops for repairs, a stop for fuel, and a stop

to ask directions from a passing freighter, followed by

difficulty locating Jamaica). As with our sister circuits, we

decline to apply “rigid requirements of professionalism” to

the “pilot/captain” enhancement and instead opt for a

“common sense approach.” Bautista-Montelongo, 618 F.3d

at 467.

We find no error in the application of the “pilot/captain”

enhancement on the facts of this case. By Cruz-Mendez’s

own account, he was a lifelong fisherman hired to transport

marijuana bales, and in so doing he operated a boat laden

with substantial cargo in open water by controlling both its

speed and direction.3 Such conduct fully justifies the

3 While Cruz-Mendez highlights that he had no authority over his codefendant, he does not argue that his co-defendant had any authority over

him while they were on the panga. See Bautista-Montelongo, 618 F.3d at

466–67 (upholding application of enhancement to career fisherman who,

 Case: 14-50154, 01/27/2016, ID: 9842032, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 8 of 9
UNITED STATES V. CRUZ-MENDEZ 9

imposition of the two-point enhancement. Cf. United States

v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005)

(upholding application of the enhancement where defendant

was a lifelong fisherman who was one of several men who

drove the boat).

B. Reasonableness of the Sentence

The district court’s imposition of the twelve-month

sentence for violation of supervised release consecutive to the

eighty-month sentence for possession of marijuana on a

vessel, resulting in a global sentence of ninety-two months,

was not an abuse of discretion. See Autery, 555 F.3d at 871. 

In fact, the district court exercised its discretion in departing

downward from the Guidelines range, “just not by as many

months as [the defendant]requested.” United States v. AyalaNicanor, 659 F.3d 744, 752 (9th Cir. 2011). Under these

circumstances, we cannot say that the below-Guidelines

sentence was substantively unreasonable.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

inter alia, did not use navigational tools and had no crew other than coconspirator).

 Case: 14-50154, 01/27/2016, ID: 9842032, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 9 of 9