Court Opinion

ID: 9942892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 01:00:41.784482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:53.378240
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50837       Document: 94-1     Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/21/2024

        United States Court of Appeals
             for the Fifth Circuit
                            ____________
                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                             No. 22-50837
                            ____________                               FILED
                                                                February 21, 2024
United States of America,                                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                       Clerk
                                                        Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                   versus

Bobby Quinton Gentile,

                                        Defendant—Appellant.
               ______________________________

               Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Western District of Texas
                         USDC No. 6:21-CR-49-5
               ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Patrick E. Higginbotham, Circuit Judge:
      Defendant Bobby Quinton Gentile pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine. Appealing
his sentence, Gentile argues the district court judge improperly coerced him
into withdrawing his objections to the Presentence Investigation Report’s
drug amount calculation by threatening to deny him his acceptance of respon-
sibility points. We find no plain error and AFFIRM.
 Case: 22-50837          Document: 94-1          Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                      No. 22-50837

                                            I.
                                            A.
        In April 2021, a grand jury indicted Bobby Quinton Gentile for
conspiring to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii)
and 846. Gentile pled guilty to the indictment before a magistrate judge on
September 7, 2021. During the colloquy, the Government read a summary of
the factual basis into the record, including statements that Gentile and Ethan
Tinney (Gentile’s supplier and a major dealer) discussed combining their
money to purchase at least 1.5 kilograms of methamphetamine, that Gentile
had purchased methamphetamine from Tinney several times, and that
Gentile’s “relevant conduct” was over 3.5 kilograms of methamphetamine. 1
        Gentile admitted to the factual basis and said he “plead[s] to
conspiracy.” However, Gentile’s attorney said Gentile took issue with “the
amount that’s attributed to him” beyond 500 grams. As the magistrate judge
summarized, Gentile “agrees that he distributed at least 500 grams of
methamphetamine, but . . . reserves the right to object to that at the time of
sentencing” insofar as the amount exceeds 500 grams. Gentile agreed, the
Government did not object, and the district court accepted the plea.
                                                 B.
        Gentile’s Presentence Investigation Report recommended a base
offense level of 36, a 2-level enhancement for firearms possession, a 2-level
enhancement for the importation of methamphetamine, and a 3-level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility, for a total offense level of 37. The
        _____________________
        1
         Under the Sentencing Guidelines, “relevant conduct” refers to “the range of
conduct that is relevant to determining the applicable offense level.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt.
backg’d.

                                             2
 Case: 22-50837         Document: 94-1          Page: 3      Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                      No. 22-50837

base offense level of 36 was supported by findings that Gentile was
responsible for trafficking 3.5 kilograms of methamphetamine (3.01 kilograms
of actual methamphetamine) and involved in at least five drug transactions. 2
Gentile also had 15 criminal history points, resulting in a criminal history
category of VI and a guideline range of 360 months to life.
        In preparing the PSR, the probation officer met with Gentile and his
attorney. During the meeting, Gentile accepted responsibility and admitted
that “he conspired to obtain a substantial amount of methamphetamine to
make some money” over the course of “approximately four to five months.”
Based on these statements, the probation officer found Gentile eligible for an
acceptance of responsibility reduction.
        But then Gentile changed his tune: He filed several written objections
to the PSR arguing that many facts were “untrue” and that law enforcement
had only seized 7.0, rather than 37.0, grams of methamphetamine. Then at
sentencing, Gentile argued that he was responsible for only 7 grams of
methamphetamine in total, as opposed to both the 500 grams to which he
pled guilty at his plea colloquy and the 3.5 kilograms contained in his accepted
factual basis. In response, the probation officer noted the district court “may
wish to consider allowing [Gentile] to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed
to trial since he is denying the elements of the offense” and, in the alternative,
suggested Gentile would be ineligible for the acceptance of responsibility
reduction. 3

        _____________________
        2
           Details about these transactions were drawn from the factual basis presented by
the Government at Gentile’s plea hearing and “reports obtained from law enforcement
officials.”
        3
          Three months after the PSR was issued, Gentile moved to withdraw his guilty
plea, asserting he was “not guilty.” The Government opposed the motion, and a hearing
was held in June 2022. Ultimately, Gentile withdrew his motion.

                                            3
 Case: 22-50837          Document: 94-1         Page: 4       Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                      No. 22-50837

                                                C.
        Gentile’s sentencing hearing was held on September 14, 2022. Gentile
said he read the PSR with his attorney, who then objected to the relevant
conduct portion of the report and told the judge that the probation office
“denied all of [Gentile’s] objections and asked to take away the points that
were attributed to Mr. Gentile agreeing to plea.” His attorney further
explained that, while they “understand how the conspiracy laws apply,” they
believe “the government may be overreaching a little bit and including
everything on top of Mr. Gentile’s sentence.” At bottom, the attorney said,
“we do admit guilt to being part of the conspiracy with the transaction that
was committed, but the amount which my client should be responsible for is
seven grams and not three kilos.”
        In response, the district judge initially said he would not remove the
acceptance of responsibility points. However, the Government then argued
Gentile pled to a charge including “at least 500 grams of methamphetamine”
but is now “only admitting to seven, eight grams of methamphetamine” and
“denying every single other bit of conduct that he’s responsible for.” The
Government said that “if [Gentile] continues to deny each and every one of
the transactions . . . then we are going to ask for his acceptance of
responsibility to be re [sic] removed.” 4 Gentile’s attorney contended that
Gentile was “not denying everything” but only “the part that he participated

        _____________________
        4
          Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, the Government influences one point of the
acceptance reduction. See U.S.S.G. §§ 3E1.1(b); 3E1.1(b) cmt. 6 (“Because the
Government is in the best position to determine whether the defendant has assisted
authorities in a manner that avoids preparing for trial, an adjustment under subsection (b)
may only be granted upon a formal motion by the Government at the time of sentencing.”).

                                            4
 Case: 22-50837          Document: 94-1          Page: 5      Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                      No. 22-50837

in.” 5 After this back-and-forth, the following exchange occurred between the
court and Gentile’s attorney:
        THE COURT: Well, if—I think what I hear you both saying is
        that you are—through your objections you are going to require
        the government to put on evidence that he actually was
        involved with many of these transactions or, you know, that he
        is actually—that he actually was guilty of the total amount of
        meth that the government is charging him with and he is only
        currently admitting participation in a much lesser amount.
        MR. VASQUEZ: Yes, Your Honor.
        THE COURT: If you do that, then I’m going to grant the objec-
        tion to his acceptance of responsibility because he’s not accepting re-
        sponsibility.
        MR. VASQUEZ: He’s accepting responsibility.
        THE COURT: No. Look. You can go back and forth and you
        can say—
        MR. VASQUEZ: Yes, Your Honor.
        THE COURT: He’s either going to accept responsibility for the en-
        tire amount, in which case he gets the three points, or you can force
        the government to do what I think you’re going to force them to do,
        and that’s fine. That’s your right. I would—I will put on the
        record it’s—it is—I’ve only been on the bench four years, but
        it has been my experience that every time someone does what
        you’re about to do, which is, requires the government to more
        fully disclose to me just how involved your person was in
        their—and how engaged they were in the crime, it always en-
        ures to their detriment. The more I know specifically about
        how guilty your person is has never helped anyone who’s come
        _____________________
        5
           Gentile’s attorney further said that this issue was “why we considered
withdrawing the plea,” but ultimately they “announced the morning of our hearing” that
they would not withdraw the plea considering they had “the ability to object to those points
of the presentence report that stacked additional drugs on to [Gentile].”

                                             5
 Case: 22-50837         Document: 94-1          Page: 6      Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                      No. 22-50837

        before your defendant. But you obviously have a constitutional
        right to do whatever you want to under the Sixth Amendment
        to protect this gentleman. But if you are going to force the govern-
        ment to prove his involvement in what I’m going to call the entire
        charge that he’s pleading guilty to, then he’s not accepting responsi-
        bility for it.
        MR. VASQUEZ: Yes, Your Honor. I understand.
        THE COURT: So if he’s willing to move forward—if he wants to move
        forward and have you force the government to put the witness on and prove
        this, he does it at the risk of losing the three points.
        After conferring with his attorney, Gentile withdrew his objection and
did not require the Government to proffer proof of the drug amount. The
district court then adopted the PSR’s sentencing recommendations,
including its guideline range of 360 months to life based on a total offense
level of 37 and a criminal history category of VI, which included Gentile’s
acceptance point reductions. Gentile did not object to any of the court’s
statements about the points or challenge the reasonableness of his sentence.
        The district court imposed a 360-month sentence, a 5-year term of
supervised release with mandatory and special conditions, a $500 fine, and a
$100 special assessment. Gentile timely appealed and now argues he was
judicially coerced into withdrawing his objections to the PSR’s drug amount
calculation. 6

        _____________________
        6
          Gentile’s appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), but this Court denied the motion and ordered briefing on
the merits regarding whether Gentile was coerced.

                                            6
 Case: 22-50837             Document: 94-1           Page: 7      Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                         No. 22-50837

                                               II.
        This Court reviews unpreserved objections regarding judicial
coercion for plain error. 7 “To prevail on plain error review, a defendant must
show (1) an error that has not been affirmatively waived, (2) that is clear or
obvious, and (3) that affected his substantial rights.” 8 If all three factors are
met, the Court has discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects
the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 9
                                              III.
         Generally, a defendant arguing that a plain error occurred at
sentencing must, at a bare minimum, show that the error could have in some
way affected his sentence. 10 While this Court has not yet decided exactly
what a defendant alleging judicial coercion in this context must show to prove
an effect on his substantial rights,11 we need not reach the question here, for
Gentile has failed to allege any remotely plausible effect on his sentence.

        _____________________
        7
            United States v. Angeles, 971 F.3d 535, 537 (5th Cir. 2020).
        8
          United States v. Lindsey, 969 F.3d 136, 139 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) and Davis v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1060, 1061–62 (2020)
(per curiam)). Gentile argues, without explanation, that this coercion was a “structural
error.” Regardless, plain error review applies, as this alleged error was unpreserved.
        9
         Lindsey, 969 F.3d at 139 (quoting Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897,
1905 (2018)).
        10
           To be clear, we do not hold that this showing is sufficient to obtain relief. See
Puckett, 556 U.S. at 142, 142 n.4 (“When the rights acquired by the defendant relate to
sentencing, the outcome he must show to have been affected is his sentence.”) (internal
quotations omitted) (cleaned up); United States v. Castillo-Rubio, 34 F.4th 404, 411 (5th
Cir. 2022) (noting, when assessing whether there was plain error when the district court
failed to adequately explain the sentence and consider certain sentencing factors, that a
defendant must demonstrate “the district court would have imposed a lower sentence” but
for the error).
        11
         Cases in this Circuit addressing whether a district court coerced a defendant into
withdrawing objections by threatening to remove acceptance of responsibility points have

                                                7
 Case: 22-50837          Document: 94-1          Page: 8       Date Filed: 02/21/2024

                                       No. 22-50837

        Gentile’s argument that he was judicially coerced to withdraw his
objections to the PSR fails under plain error review because, even assuming
arguendo that the district court erred clearly by coercing him, Gentile does
not show the error affected his substantial rights. Gentile’s sole argument
about the negative impact of the alleged coercion is that, had he “received
his three points, the offense level would have been 34, and with a criminal
history category of VI his Guidelines range would have been 262–327
months, instead of 360 to life.” But this contention is factually incorrect.
Gentile did receive all three of his acceptance points; his offense level of 37
accounted for them. 12 As a result, Gentile has failed to show any possible
effect on his substantial rights. His sentence is AFFIRMED.

        _____________________
not articulated what a defendant must show to prove an effect on his substantial rights. See,
e.g., Angeles, 971 F.3d at 537–39; United States v. Schenck, 697 F. App’x 422, 423 (5th Cir.
2017); United States v. Sykes, 559 F. App’x 331 (5th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (per curiam)
(mem. op.).
        12
          Because Gentile failed to show an effect on his substantial rights, we do not reach
the Government’s alternative arguments that Gentile “attempted to minimize conduct and
falsely deny his relevant conduct” and based his objections on “unreliable, unsworn
assertions.”
        Attorneys have an enduring duty to analyze non-frivolous issues even when their
Anders motions have been denied. Here, simply reading the sentencing hearing transcript
should have informed Gentile’s attorney that the relevant offense level was 37–40, rather
than 34–37; thus, taking the opportunity to file a reply brief addressing the briefing error
would have been proper.

                                             8