Court Opinion

ID: 9891042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 15:01:17.140981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:41.121674
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
         For the Eighth Circuit
     ___________________________

             No. 22-3549
     ___________________________

          United States of America

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                        v.

            Joshua Stewart Myatt

   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
      ___________________________

             No. 22-3553
     ___________________________

          United States of America

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                        v.

               Rodney Jiminez

   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                   ____________

 Appeals from United States District Court
 for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
               ____________

      Submitted: September 18, 2023
         Filed: October 17, 2023
              [Unpublished]
             ____________
Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Joshua Stewart Myatt and Rodney Jiminez pleaded guilty to one count of
conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and five hundred
grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846.
The district court sentenced Myatt to 300 months’ imprisonment and Jiminez to 216
months’ imprisonment, both sentences representing downward variances from the
advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines ranges. Jiminez and Myatt appeal, arguing that
the district court erred in determining their roles in the offense. Myatt also argues
that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

       The United States Postal Service intercepted two packages in September 2021
that were sent to Myatt at an address in Morrison, Illinois. Each contained almost a
kilogram of ice methamphetamine. A third package was intercepted in January 2022.
It contained 1,376 grams of ice methamphetamine and was sent to an address in
Sterling, Illinois, that was associated with Jiminez. After a law enforcement officer
delivered the package, Jiminez arrived in a vehicle, parked in a neighboring driveway,
and retrieved the package from the front porch. He was thereafter arrested.

       Jiminez told officers that he had received the package on behalf of Myatt, who
was waiting in Sterling to pick up the drugs. Jiminez arranged to meet Myatt at a gas
station, where officers arrested him.

       Myatt told officers that he received drug shipments from his supplier through
the mail, with the packages typically containing between two and four pounds of ice
methamphetamine. After two packages had not been delivered, Myatt asked Jiminez
if he would receive the packages. Jiminez agreed to do so, receiving as many as

                                         -2-
seventeen packages on behalf of Myatt over the course of four months. Myatt
typically compensated Jiminez with an ounce of methamphetamine.

       At Myatt’s sentencing, the district court increased his base offense level by 4
after determining that he “was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that
involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” See U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.1(a). The parties had resolved Myatt’s factual objections to the presentence
report, and the district court relied upon its revised factual recitation. At Jiminez’s
sentencing, the district court denied his request for an offense-level reduction for
being a minor or minimal participant. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Myatt and Jiminez
argue that these role-in-the-offense determinations are erroneous. “We review the
district court’s factual findings regarding the applicability of guidelines enhancements
and reductions for clear error, and we review its interpretation of the guidelines de
novo.” United States v. Armstrong, 60 F.4th 1151, 1166 (8th Cir. 2023).

      Myatt contends that the district court erred when it applied the organizer or
leader enhancement under Guidelines § 3B1.1(a). He contends that he was a mere
“cog in the line” who took direction from others, asserting that he was not involved
in any high-level planning and that he did not recruit participants to the conspiracy.
Myatt’s Br. 11. Myatt does not dispute the court’s finding that the conspiracy
involved five or more participants.

      We conclude that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement.
According to the revised presentence report, after Jiminez agreed to receive packages,
Myatt told Jiminez of the expected delivery date and notified Jiminez of delivery.
Jiminez then retrieved the package and delivered it to Myatt, who compensated him.
Myatt thereafter distributed the drug to his customers in Clinton, Davenport, and
Muscatine, Iowa, and sent the cash proceeds via mail or wire to his supplier in
Arizona. According to one customer, Myatt set the purchase price and allowed her
to pay half upon delivery and the remainder at the next delivery. Myatt thus
coordinated with the out-of-state supplier, directed Jiminez’s activities, delivered to

                                          -3-
lower-level distributors in river towns in Iowa, set the purchase price, and allowed the
distributors to buy on credit. As the district court noted, the Guidelines do not require
the defendant to be the organizer or leader of the entire operation for the enhancement
to apply. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n. 4 (“There can, of course, be more than one person
who qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy.”); see
United States v. Bahena, 223 F.3d 797, 804 (8th Cir. 2000) (“[A] defendant need be
only ‘an’ organizer or leader. He does not have to be ‘the’ organizer or leader.”).
The record supports the district court’s determination that Myatt organized and led
the criminal activity in Iowa. See, e.g., Bahena, 223 F.3d at 804–05 (holding that the
district court did not err in characterizing defendant as a leader or organizer because
he “was more than a mere distributor” and he “actively promoted the shipments from
California and led or organized at least his two family members”).

       The record likewise supports the finding that Jiminez was an average
participant and thus not entitled to a mitigating-role reduction under Guidelines
§ 3B1.2. Although he claims that his only role in the conspiracy was to be “a mailing
site for illegal drugs,” Jiminez’s Br. 17, his presentence report indicates greater
involvement. Jiminez was involved in the conspiracy for four months, accepted as
many as seventeen packages on behalf of Myatt, knew or believed that those
packages contained methamphetamine, and delivered the packages to Myatt in
exchange for compensation. Each package contained between two and four pounds
of methamphetamine. “We have repeatedly found no clear error in the denial of a
minor-role reduction on similar facts.” United States v. Ramirez-Maldonado, 928
F.3d 702, 708–09 (8th Cir. 2019); see, e.g., id. at 708 (defendant was involved for the
conspiracy for at least three months and delivered cocaine on at least one occasion);
United States v. Almazan, 552 F. App’x 610, 611 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)
(defendant knowingly transported cocaine in a secret compartment and anticipated
receiving $1,000 as compensation).

      Myatt also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, which we
review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

                                          -4-
Myatt argues that the district court failed to give adequate weight to the fact that his
substance abuse issues led to his criminal activity. See United States v. Feemster, 572
F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (district court abuses its discretion when it
commits a clear error of judgment in weighing sentencing factors). We find no clear
error of judgment in the district court’s decision to weigh Myatt’s drug addiction and
need for treatment against the seriousness of the offense, the need to protect the
public, and the need for deterrence in light of “the volume of methamphetamine
involved in the offense, the sophistication of the distribution and the willingness to
continue the distribution of this quantity of methamphetamine despite apparent
investigation by law enforcement.” Myatt’s Sentencing Tr. 33; see United States v.
Brown, 992 F.3d 665, 673 (8th Cir. 2021) (“[Defendant’s] assertion of substantive
unreasonableness amounts to nothing more than a disagreement with how the district
court chose to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in fashioning his sentence.”); United States
v. King, 898 F.3d 797, 810 (8th Cir. 2018) (“The district court’s decision not to weigh
mitigating factors as heavily as [the defendant] would have preferred does not justify
reversal.” (cleaned up)). Moreover, “[w]hen a district court varies downward and
sentences below a presumptively reasonable Guidelines range, it is nearly
inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still
further.” United States v. Webb, 70 F.4th 1038, 1046 (8th Cir. 2023) (citation
omitted). Myatt’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable.

      The judgments are affirmed.
                     ______________________________

                                          -5-