Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02022/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02022-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Enrique Rodriguez-Medrano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2022

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Jose Enrique Rodriguez-Medrano, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 13, 2004

Filed: December 30, 2004

___________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose E. Rodriguez-Medrano pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to

distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) & 846. The district court1

 sentenced Rodriguez-Medrano to

eighty-seven months imprisonment, a sentence which reflected a two-level upward

enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4, for use of a minor in the offense. On

appeal, Rodriguez-Medrano contends the district court erred in imposing the upward

Appellate Case: 04-2022 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2004 Entry ID: 1849917 
-2-

enhancement because his conduct does not meet the definition of “use” for purposes

of § 3B1.4. 

I

After earlier spotting a man suspiciously watching him from a Super 8 Motel,

a deputy county sheriff obtained a drug-sniffing canine to conduct an exterior drug

sniff of vehicles located in the motel parking lot. The canine detected the odor of

illegal drugs in two vans. The deputy sheriff then applied for and obtained search

warrants for the vans. Upon searching the vans, the sheriff’s department found

approximately 820 pounds of marijuana in a large plastic tote and five large duffel

bags. The deputies arrested the three adults in the motel rooms associated with the

vans. The three adults were traveling with their five children ranging in age from

four to seven years old.

Two of the adults (Saenz and Cortez) cooperated with authorities by giving the

name of Rodriguez-Medrano as the name of the leader or organizer of the drug ring.

On several occasions, Rodriguez-Medrano paid them to smuggle a vehicle loaded

with drugs from Mexico to various locations in the United States. RodriguezMedrano suggested they put groceries in the trunks of the vehicles and bring their

children along to make them look more like a family, less suspect. 

At Rodriguez-Medrano’s sentencing, the district court applied a two-level

enhancement for use of a minor under § 3B1.4. In support of the enhancement, the

district court made the following finding of fact: 

My finding of fact is that the defendant made a request of the

codefendants to bring their children. It was ultimately the decision of

the codefendants, meaning Saenz and Cortez, to bring the kids. But

under this guideline that’s sufficient for the enhancement. . . I don’t find

that he – that it was a condition precedent to Cortez and Saenz’s

Appellate Case: 04-2022 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2004 Entry ID: 1849917 
-3-

involvment. He didn’t make it contingent on that. He didn’t put

pressure on them to bring the kids, but he suggested it might help devoid

– avoid detection.

Because the district court found he merely requested the codefendants bring their

children and it was ultimately the decision of each codefendant to bring their children,

Rodriguez-Medrano claims the application of the two-level use of minor

enhancement was erroneous. We disagree.

II

“A district court’s factual determination that leads to the application of a

sentence enhancement is reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Fladten, 230 F.3d

1083, 1086 (8th Cir. 2000). We review de novo the applicability of a guideline to the

facts. United States v. Guy, 349 F.3d 655, 658 (8th Cir. 2003). 

Section 3B1.4 provides for a two-level enhancement to a defendant’s guideline

“if the defendant used or attempted to use a person less than eighteen years of age to

commit the offense or assist in avoiding detection of, or apprehension for, the

offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4. The phrase “‘used or attempted to use’ includes

directing, commanding, encouraging, intimidating, counseling, training, procuring,

recruiting, or soliciting.” Id. at app. n.1. Active involvement of a minor is not

required; the focus is on the defendant’s acts. United States v.Wingate, 369 F.3d

1028, 1032 (8th Cir. 2004).

Rodriguez-Medrano claims his request is comparable to mere awareness of a

minor’s involvement, which does not constitute “use” for purposes of the

enhancement. United States v. Butler, 207 F.3d 839, 847 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding

§ 3B1.4 requires more than mere awareness of a minor’s involvement, it requires an

affirmative act on the part of the defendant). However, contrary to RodriguezMedrano’s claim, his conduct involved more than mere awareness of a minor’s

Appellate Case: 04-2022 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/30/2004 Entry ID: 1849917 
-4-

involvement. Rodriguez-Medrano took the affirmative step of requesting that his

subordinate codefendants bring their children to make them appear less suspicious.

In essence, by requesting his subordinates bring their children, Rodriguez-Medrano

encouraged them to use their children as props in a scheme to avoid detection. The

subordinates testified they took his request very seriously. Even though the decision

to bring their children was up to each individual defendant, without RodriguezMedrano’s request it was unlikely his subordinates would have endangered their

children by bringing them on drug smuggling missions. Thus, § 3B1.4

unambiguously applies to Rodriguez-Medrano’s conduct described herein.

III

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2022 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/30/2004 Entry ID: 1849917