Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02681/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02681-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ezequiel Jacinto
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2681

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Ezequiel Jacinto, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2006

Filed: February 22, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Police officers stopped a car driven by Ezequiel Jacinto for a traffic violation.

After officers arrested Jacinto for driving with a suspended license, they conducted

an inventory search and found a loaded sawed-off shotgun on the floorboard under a

coat, as well as a digital scale and three ounces of marijuana. Jacinto later pleaded

guilty to possession of an unregistered shotgun having barrel of less than eighteen

inches in length. At the sentencing hearing, Jacinto sought a minor role reduction

under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, proffering his own testimony that when he stopped to pick

up his passenger, the passenger had the gun beneath his coat and showed it to Jacinto

when he entered the vehicle. The presentence report shows Jacinto made the same

statement to police at the time of his arrest, and presents no alternative version of

Appellate Case: 05-2681 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2006 Entry ID: 2012240
*

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

-2-

events. Although the Government proffered no facts at the hearing, the Government

argued neither the presentence report nor the prosecution had referred to anyone else

possessing the gun, and no other individual had been charged with the offense of

unregistered gun possession. The district court*

 observed that Jacinto’s offense

required just one person for its commission. The court then denied the reduction

“based on the nature of the offense, regardless of who initially may have placed the

weapon in the car and in [Jacinto’s] possession.” The court sentenced Jacinto at the

bottom of the advisory Guidelines range to thirty-seven months in prison and three

years of supervised release. 

On appeal, Jacinto first contends the district court erroneously concluded he

was ineligible for a mitigating role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 as a matter of

law. Section 3B1.2(b) provides that if the defendant was a minor participant in any

criminal activity, the district court may decrease the offense level by two. The

commentary notes indicate, however, that § 3B1.2 does not apply

unless more than one participant was involved in the offense. . . .

Accordingly, an adjustment under this guideline may not apply to a

defendant who is the only defendant convicted of an offense unless that

offense involved other participants in addition to the defendant and the

defendant otherwise qualifies for such an adjustment.

 

“A ‘participant’ is a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the

offense, but need not have been convicted.” U.S.S.G. §§ 3B1.2 n.1, 3B1.1 n.1. We

have held that a defendant convicted of a “sole participant” offense may be entitled

to the § 3B1.2 reduction if the defendant shows (1) the relevant conduct for which he

is accountable involved more than one participant, and (2) the defendant’s culpability

for the conduct was relatively minor compared to the conduct of the other participants.

Appellate Case: 05-2681 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2006 Entry ID: 2012240
-3-

United States v. Snoddy, 139 F.3d 1224, 1231 (8th Cir. 1998). The defendant has the

burden to show entitlement to the reduction. United States v. Salvador, 426 F.3d 989,

993 (8th Cir. 2005). Although we review a district court’s interpretation and

construction of the Guidelines de novo, we review a district court’s decision that a

defendant does not qualify for a § 3B1.2 reduction for clear error. United States v.

Monk, 312 F.3d 389, 390 (8th Cir. 2002). 

The district court did not commit clear error in denying Jacinto the reduction.

First, Jacinto failed to show the relevant conduct for which he is accountable involved

multiple actors engaged in concerted criminal activity. United States v. Johnson, 358

F.3d 1016, 1018 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining first prong of Snoddy test). The PSR

indicated Jacinto was the only participant in the offense. Jacinto’s passenger never

admitted ownership of the shotgun, and he was not charged with its possession in state

or federal court. The shotgun was not found near the passenger, and the passenger’s

mere presence in the car from which the gun was recovered does not establish the

passenger’s possession. United States v. Payne, 377 F.3d 811, 815 (8th Cir. 2004).

Further, the facts alleged by Jacinto do not support a finding that he and his passenger

were engaged in joint criminal activity. Instead, Jacinto maintained he simply

encountered his passenger on the street and offered to give him a ride. 

Jacinto also argues his post-Booker sentence is unreasonable. See United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Jacinto claims the district court ignored unusual

mitigating circumstances relating to Jacinto’s possession, gave undue weight to the

sentencing guidelines, and did not properly balance the sentencing factors in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because the district court properly declined to apply § 3B1.2 to

Jacinto, his Guidelines sentencing range is correct. See United States v. Hadash, 408

F.3d 1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining our review of a sentence’s

reasonableness). The district court sentenced Jacinto within the range after

considering the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a). Accordingly, Jacinto’s

Appellate Case: 05-2681 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/22/2006 Entry ID: 2012240
-4-

sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Vasquez, No. 05-1644, 2006 WL

47514, at *4 (8th Cir. Jan. 11, 2006). 

We thus affirm Jacinto’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2681 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/22/2006 Entry ID: 2012240