Court Opinion

ID: 9407377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 18:00:43.724531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:37.276791
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40512         Document: 00516810395             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/06/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 22-40512
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                       July 6, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Oziel Cantu,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:20-CR-1414-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Oziel Cantu appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following his
   guilty plea to accepting a bribe by a public official, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
   § 201(b)(2)(C). The district court calculated Cantu’s Sentencing Guidelines
   range to be 108 to 135-months’ imprisonment. He maintains the court erred
   by: enhancing his sentence under Guideline § 2C1.1(b)(1) and (4); applying

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40512      Document: 00516810395           Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/06/2023

                                     No. 22-40512

   the § 2C1.1(c)(1) cross-reference to reach a drug amount of 38 kilograms of
   cocaine; and when applying the § 2C1.1(c)(1) cross-reference, retaining the
   § 2D1.1(b)(16)(C) two-level enhancement for being directly involved in
   importing a controlled substance. He further contends the court should have
   granted him a downward departure or variance.
          Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, the district
   court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating
   the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51
   (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to
   an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an
   abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-Martinez,
   564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in
   district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual
   findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517
   F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
          The Guideline § 2C1.1(c)(1) cross-reference applies if the offense was
   committed for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another criminal
   offense. In that case, the offense guideline applicable to a conspiracy to
   commit the other offense applies. U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(c)(1).
          Cantu posits that § 2C1.1(c)(1) cannot apply to him because there was
   no conspiracy and the only cocaine involved was 11 kilograms of sham cocaine
   transported by an undercover agent. His argument fails given that Cantu,
   while working as a border-patrol officer, orchestrated from his post at the
   secondary inspection lane the successful crossing of a vehicle he believed
   contained cocaine. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 395 (5th Cir.
   2010); United States v. Burke, 431 F.3d 883, 886–87 (5th Cir. 2005)
   (providing “sentence for a drug conspiracy may be based on a quantity of fake
   drugs”).

                                           2
Case: 22-40512       Document: 00516810395          Page: 3     Date Filed: 07/06/2023

                                     No. 22-40512

            Because the cross-reference applies, Cantu’s offense level is
   determined under § 2D1.1 rather than § 2C1.1; therefore, his challenges to
   the enhancements pursuant to § 2C1.1(b)(1) for accepting more than one
   bribe, and § 2C1.1(b)(4) for facilitating, as a public official, the entry of a
   person, vehicle, or cargo into the United States, are moot.
            We lack jurisdiction to review the court’s refusal to grant a downward
   departure given that Cantu does not contend, and the record does not
   suggest, that the court was unaware of its authority to depart from the
   Guidelines range. See United States v. Fillmore, 889 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir.
   2018).
            Regarding his downward-variance claim, assuming arguendo our court
   recognizes sentencing entrapment, Cantu must establish that he was
   persuaded to commit a greater offense than he otherwise was predisposed to
   commit or that the conduct of law-enforcement officials was overbearing or
   outrageous. See United States v. Stephens, 717 F.3d 440, 446 (5th Cir. 2013);
   United States v. Jones, 664 F.3d 966, 984 (5th Cir. 2011).
            Cantu initiated the meeting with the drug-trafficking organization and
   offered the many ways he could assist in smuggling drugs. Further, after
   meeting with the undercover agent for the first time, Cantu texted the agent
   requesting another meeting. At that meeting, Cantu set his own price and
   determined the quantity of drugs. Had the undercover agents acted on
   Cantu’s suggestion of 40 kilograms of cocaine, Cantu would have received
   $30,000. These facts do not make the showing required for sentencing
   entrapment. See Stephens, 717 F. 3d at 446–47.
            Finally, Cantu contends the court erred when it retained the
   § 2D1.1(b)(16)(C) two-level enhancement for Cantu’s having been directly
   involved in importing a controlled substance after the court declined to apply
   an aggravating-role adjustment. Because he did not object on this basis in

                                           3
Case: 22-40512       Document: 00516810395           Page: 4    Date Filed: 07/06/2023

                                      No. 22-40512

   district court, review is only for plain error. E.g., Puckett v. United States, 556
   U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
            The two-level enhancement under Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(16)(C)
   applies only if defendant receives an aggravating-role adjustment, which, as
   noted, Cantu did not. The Government concedes, and we agree, that this
   was plain error. Without that enhancement, Cantu’s offense level is 29, and,
   with a criminal history category I, it appears his advisory Guidelines
   sentencing range is 87 to 108-months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. Ch.5, Pt.
   A (sentencing table). Because the court considered the incorrect range of
   108–135 months and Cantu’s 120-months’ sentence exceeds the above-
   described correct range, we exercise our discretion under plain-error review
   to correct the forfeited error. See Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct.
   1897, 1907–11 (2018). Therefore, we remand for resentencing.
            We AFFIRM the conviction, the application of the § 2C1.1(c) cross-
   reference, and the denial of a downward variance. We VACATE the
   sentence and REMAND for resentencing with instruction that, in
   resentencing Cantu, the district court should consider the correct Guidelines
   range.

                                           4