Court Opinion

ID: 9554454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 00:00:33.755316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:58.283133
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50754        Document: 00516850686             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/08/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50754
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                 August 8, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Otoniel Garcia-Nieto,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:22-CR-61-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Otoniel Garcia-Nieto pleaded guilty to: conspiracy to possess 50
   grams or more of actual methamphetamine with intent to distribute and
   distribution of 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, in violation of
   21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (count one); and possession of a
   firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

          _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50754      Document: 00516850686           Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                     No. 22-50754

   § 924(c) (count two). The district court sentenced Garcia to, inter alia,
   consecutive terms of 240-months’ imprisonment on count one and 60-
   months’ imprisonment on count two.
          Garcia challenges the court’s finding he did not qualify for a minor-
   role adjustment under Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.2(b), contending he
   should have received a two-level downward adjustment for his minor role in
   the offense because he was merely a middleman who stored the drugs. He
   also contests the court’s applying the two-level importation enhancement
   under Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(5).
          Although post-Booker, the Sentencing 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).
          Garcia maintains he was not involved in the planning or organizing of
   the illicit activity and that he did not have decision-making authority. The
   record reflects, however, that Garcia: received, secured, and stored drugs;
   distributed drugs to others for resale; and collected payments for drugs. In
   the light of viewing the record in its entirety, Garcia did not show the district
   court clearly erred regarding whether he was substantially less culpable than
   the average participant nor whether he was peripheral to the criminal activity.
   See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. nn.3 & 5; United States v. Anchundia-Espinoza, 897
   F.3d 629, 634–35 (5th Cir. 2018) (explaining minor-role adjustment “is not

                                           2
Case: 22-50754       Document: 00516850686          Page: 3     Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                     No. 22-50754

   appropriate simply because a defendant does less than other participants; in
   order to qualify as a minor participant, a defendant must have been peripheral
   to the advancement of the illicit activity” (citation omitted)).
            To that point, Garcia maintains the court erred by not making any
   findings on the record concerning the average participant in the conspiracy
   or whether Garcia’s participation was substantially less culpable for purposes
   of § 3B1.2. Because he did not raise this issue in district court, review is only
   for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir.
   2012).
            At sentencing, the court stated its agreement with the Government’s
   position and expressly adopted the probation officer’s response to Garcia’s
   objection. Garcia has not shown, under plain-error review, the requisite
   clear-or-obvious error because he did not request the court to further
   articulate its reasoning at sentencing. E.g., United States v. Pike, 979 F.3d 364,
   365–66 (5th Cir. 2020) (explaining district court must articulate factual basis
   for its finding that defendant was average participant and its reasons for
   refusing mitigating-role adjustment only when defendant requested that it do
   so).
            As for his challenge to the imposition of the importation enhancement
   under Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(5), Garcia asserts only that the enhancement was
   improper because he was entitled to a mitigating-role adjustment. Because
   his minor-role argument fails, Garcia was subject to the importation
   enhancement.      See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5)(B); see also United States v.
   Jerome, 707 F. App’x 853, 854 (5th Cir. 2018) (“Because we discern no error
   in the district court’s denial of a mitigating role adjustment, [defendant] was
   [subject to] the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement.”).
            AFFIRMED.

                                           3