IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41122

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN DE DIOS CEDILLO-NARVAEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CR-1599-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan de Dios Cedillo-Narvaez (Cedillo) pleaded guilty to count five of a 

third superseding indictment charging him with conspiring to seize and detain 

with threats certain aliens in order to compel a third person to pay a sum of 

money for their release. A co-defendant, Jose Angel Lopez, pleaded guilty to 

count one of the third superseding indictment, conspiring to harbor illegal 

aliens. The charges arose from a scheme, organized and planned by Cedillo 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 13, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-41122 Document: 00512497836 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2014
No. 12-41122

and Lopez, to seize a group of illegal aliens from another alien smuggling 

operation and hold them while extorting money from family members in 

exchange for the aliens’ safe release. In setting a sentence for Cedillo, the 

district court departed downward from the guidelines range of life 

imprisonment to a term of 180 months of imprisonment based on a U.S.S.G. 

§ 5K1.1 motion by the Government. Sentencing Lopez on the harboring illegal 

alien charge, the district court imposed a lower sentence of 120 months of 

imprisonment.

Cedillo contends that the unwarranted disparity between his sentence 

and Lopez’s lower sentence requires that his sentence be vacated and this 

matter remanded for resentencing. Generally, we review the reasonableness 

of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). However, as Cedillo concedes, he did not raise this argument in the 

district court and we therefore review only for plain error. See United States 

v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Cedillo contends that, in 

granting the § 5K1.1 motion but only departing downwardly to the extent it 

did, the district court failed to account sufficiently for the danger faced by him 

and his family because of his cooperation with the Government. Additionally, 

he avers that, in considering the sentence disparity and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors, the district court failed to adequately account for the facts that Lopez 

had a higher criminal history score than Cedillo, that Lopez was on supervised 

release at the time of the instant offense, and that Lopez was more culpable in 

the instant offense than Cedillo. 

At sentencing, the Government noted that Cedillo had initially been 

helpful with the investigation, but then refused to testify against Lopez, forcing 

the Government to permit Lopez to plead only to harboring illegal aliens. The

Government recognized that Cedillo’s cooperation had permitted it to charge 

2

 Case: 12-41122 Document: 00512497836 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2014
No. 12-41122

other individuals as well, but also argued that Cedillo was ultimately more 

culpable than Lopez because Lopez had been the “mastermind” while Cedillo 

had been the main actor and enforcer of their plan. Although the Government

recognized the disparity with Lopez’s sentence, the Government did not 

recommend a further departure. In light of the district court’s consideration 

of the Government’s arguments and recommendation, which was entitled to 

substantial weight, Cedillo’s unsupported and conclusory assertions are 

insufficient to show that the district court clearly or obviously erred in setting 

his sentence. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 134-35 (2009); Peltier, 

505 F.3d at 391-92; United States v. Johnson, 33 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). As 

to Cedillo’s challenge to the extent of the downward departure he received, he 

did not allege that the departure was a violation of law and thus failed to show 

that the district court acted outside of its discretion in departing to 180 months 

of imprisonment. See United States v. Hashimoto, 193 F.3d 840, 843 (5th Cir. 

1999). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 12-41122 Document: 00512497836 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/13/2014