Case: 18-12117 Date Filed: 07/08/2019 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-12117
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00308-EAK-TGW-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CESAR OSBALDO RODRIGUEZ, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 8, 2019)
Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-12117 Date Filed: 07/08/2019 Page: 2 of 9
Cesar Rodriguez, Jr., appeals his 180-month sentence after pleading guilty to
several drug-trafficking offenses. On appeal, Rodriguez argues that the district court
erred by applying a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C)
(2016), because the government failed to prove that he was “directly involved” in
the importation of the drugs. We conclude that the record is insufficient to permit
meaningful review, so we remand for the district court to clarify its sentencing
decisions.
I.
Rodriguez pled guilty to conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to
distribute heroin and cocaine.1 During the plea colloquy, he admitted to selling
heroin to confidential sources on seven occasions in 2015. One of the sales also
included cocaine. A search warrant executed at his home revealed additional
quantities of heroin and more than $60,000 in cash.
The presentence investigation report (“PSR”)—after multiple revisions—
calculated a guideline imprisonment range of 210 to 262 months based on a total
offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of IV. In calculating the offense
level, the PSR applied § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) (2016)2, which provides for a two-level
1
Rodriguez pled guilty, without a written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846;
seven counts of possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of § 841(a)(1); and one
count of possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine, in violation of § 841(a)(1).
2
This same provision now appears under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(16)(C).
2
Case: 18-12117 Date Filed: 07/08/2019 Page: 3 of 9
increase if the defendant both receives an aggravating-role adjustment under § 3B1.1
and “was directly involved in the importation of a controlled substance.” The PSR
stated that this enhancement applied because “[t]he defendant was a manager and
supervisor within the conspiracy, and the case involved heroin imported from
Mexico.”
Rodriguez contested this enhancement in objections to the PSR, two
sentencing memoranda, and arguments at sentencing. He maintained that he was
not personally involved in the importation of heroin and that it was not enough that
the offense involved heroin imported from Mexico.
At Rodriguez’s sentencing, which occurred over two days in April and May
of 2018, the government called two case agents from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”) to testify. Their testimony, along with facts from the PSR that
are undisputed or no longer at issue, established the following.
Rodriguez managed a heroin-trafficking organization based in Tampa,
Florida, employing multiple “street-level dealers” to sell heroin for him. Some of
the heroin Rodriguez distributed was imported from Mexico. This heroin was
supplied by Jose Angel Cerrillo, who had connections to the Mexican drug cartel
that trafficked the heroin. The FBI determined that the heroin was being imported
near Brownsville, Texas, where Cerrillo lived. Cerrillo transported the heroin from
Brownsville to Tampa—either personally or through other couriers—using the
3
Case: 18-12117 Date Filed: 07/08/2019 Page: 4 of 9
public bus system. Despite Cerrillo’s connections to the cartel, Rodriguez’s
organization was not part of the cartel.
In mid-July 2015, the FBI intercepted a phone call between Cerillo and
Rodriguez in which Cerrillo stated that he was bringing 2.5 kilograms of heroin to
Tampa for Rodriguez, who was then in Puerto Rico. On the date of Cerrillo’s
scheduled arrival, law enforcement went to the bus terminal in Tampa and made
contact with Cerrillo and Maria Zacharias, a courier coconspirator who, according
to the PSR, “dealt directly with the suppliers in Mexico.” No drugs were found on
Cerrillo, but he was arrested on an outstanding warrant and taken to jail. At the jail,
Cerrillo called Zacharias and told her to pick him up when he bonded out. After she
did so, they drove to a local hotel, retrieved the heroin, and then hailed a taxi to go
to a Chinese restaurant, where the FBI believed Rodriguez’s people were waiting.
Law enforcement conducted a traffic stop of the taxi and found Cerrillo and
Zacharias in possession of close to one kilogram of heroin. Post-arrest, Zacharias
stated that this was the second trip she and Cerrillo had made, in conjunction with
Rodriguez, in recent months.
Special Agent Joseph Boland initially testified that, during the intercepted
phone call between Rodriguez and Cerrillo, Rodriguez told Cerrillo to go to a hotel
in Tampa so that they could later arrange a pickup. Boland conceded on cross-
examination, however, that the conversation about meeting at the hotel was between
4
Case: 18-12117 Date Filed: 07/08/2019 Page: 5 of 9
Cerrillo and Zacharias, not Rodriguez, and that Rodriguez immediately hung up on
Cerrillo after Cerrillo stated that he had “two and a half for you.”
After considering this evidence and argument from the parties, the district
court adopted the undisputed aspects of the PSR and then resolved the disputed
issues, including the importation enhancement, for the reasons “stated in the
addendum” to the PSR. The addendum, however, addressed only drug quantity and
the aggravating-role enhancement; it did not address the importation enhancement.
The court then varied downward from the guideline range of 210 to 262 months and
sentenced Rodriguez to 180 months of imprisonment. This appeal followed.
II.
We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de
novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Smith,
231 F.3d 800,
806 (11th Cir. 2000). The government bears the burden to prove the application of
a disputed sentencing enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. United
States v. Martinez,
584 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2009).
Section 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) of the 2016 Sentencing Guidelines provides that, if
a defendant receives an adjustment under § 3B1.1 for an aggravating role and was
“directly involved in the importation of a controlled substance,” his offense level is
increased by two levels. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) (2016). The commentary
offers the following guidance for applying this enhancement:
5
Case: 18-12117 Date Filed: 07/08/2019 Page: 6 of 9
Subsection (b)(15)(C) applies if the defendant is accountable for the
importation of a controlled substance under subsection (a)(1)(A) of
§ 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct (Factors that Determine the Guideline
Range)), i.e., the defendant committed, aided, abetted, counseled,
commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused the importation of
a controlled substance.
Id. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.20(B). In other words, the enhancement must be based on the
defendant’s own conduct, not on the reasonably foreseeable acts of others in
furtherance of jointly undertaken activity. See id.; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).
Rodriguez argues that the evidence here fails to show a nexus between his
conduct and the importation of the heroin. At best, he says, the evidence shows that
he received (and then sold) heroin that had been imported into the United States at
some point by a drug cartel through a person with connections to that cartel.
We have not previously addressed what it means for a defendant to be
“directly involved” in importation within the meaning of § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) (2016).
We have, however, considered a separate importation enhancement, which directs a
two-level increase if “the offense involved the importation of amphetamine or
methamphetamine.” See United States v. Perez-Oliveros,
479 F.3d 779, 783–84
(2007). In Perez-Oliveros, we held that this enhancement—now under U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(b)(5)—did not “apply to only those defendants who themselves transport
methamphetamine across the border.” Id. at 784. We reasoned that, if the
Sentencing Commission had wanted § 2D1.1(b)(5) to apply to only the importation
of methamphetamine, it would have used the more restrictive language it used in a
6
Case: 18-12117 Date Filed: 07/08/2019 Page: 7 of 9
different subsection, “which applies a separate enhancement only ‘[i]f the defendant
unlawfully imported or exported a controlled substance’ under certain
circumstances.” Id. (quoting what is now U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(3)). But since the
Commission chose the “more inclusive language ‘involved the importation,’” we
gave the enhancement a “broader reading.” Id. However, we “decline[d] to define
the exact contours of what it means for an offense to ‘involve[] the importation of .
. . methamphetamine,’” finding that the requisite level of involvement was met. Id.
(defendant transported drugs as part of an ongoing importation, even though he did
not personally cross the border).
In light of Perez-Oliveros, we would have little difficulty concluding that
Rodriguez’s offense “involved the importation” of heroin. But § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C)
requires something more: that “the defendant was directly involved in the
importation.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) (2016) (emphasis added). This language
indicates that the Sentencing Commission intended § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) to apply more
narrowly than § 2D1.1(b)(5). Cf. United States v. Biao Huang,
687 F.3d 1197,
1205–06 (9th Cir. 2012) (“If the Sentencing Commission had intended to limit
§ 2D1.1(b)(5) to defendants who personally imported methamphetamine, it would
have used the more restrictive language it included in these other enhancements.”
(referring to § 2D1.1(b)(3) and (b)(15)(C)); United States v. Rodriguez,
666 F.3d
944, 946 (5th Cir. 2012) (“The scope of actions that ‘involve’ the importation of
7
Case: 18-12117 Date Filed: 07/08/2019 Page: 8 of 9
drugs is larger than the scope of those that constitute the actual importation.”). It is
not enough for the offense simply to have involved importation, even where the
importation is the result of reasonably foreseeable acts of others in furtherance of
the jointly undertaken criminal activity. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.20(B).
Instead, the defendant must have “committed, aided, abetted, counseled,
commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused the importation.” Id.
Here, we cannot tell whether the district court made a factual finding beyond
that the offense involved heroin imported from Mexico. The court stated that it
resolved the disputed sentencing issues for the reasons “stated in the addendum” to
the PSR, but the addendum did not address the importation enhancement. Assuming
the court also meant to adopt the PSR’s explanation of the basis for the enhancement,
that gets us no further than that “the case involved heroin imported from Mexico.”
This statement, however, doesn’t explain Rodriguez’s personal involvement in the
importation, nor does Rodriguez’s manager or supervisor role in the distribution of
heroin imported from Mexico necessarily mean that he was “directly involved” in
its importation.
Because we are unable to tell the basis for the district court’s application of
the importation enhancement and whether that basis adequately supports the
enhancement, we remand for further proceedings. 3 See United States v. Reid, 139
3
The government in its brief on appeal offers more precise grounds for applying the
8
Case: 18-12117 Date Filed: 07/08/2019 Page: 9 of
9
F.3d 1367, 1368 (11th Cir. 1998) (“We cannot engage in meaningful appellate
review of a sentence unless the district court sets out the facts underpinning the
guidelines it applied in fashioning the defendant’s sentence or the record plainly
establishes such facts.”). On remand, the court should clarify its grounds, based on
the current record, for determining that Rodriguez was “directly involved” in the
importation of heroin under § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C).
Alternatively, if the district court would have imposed the same sentence
regardless of its resolution of the guideline issue, given that it imposed a sentence
outside the guideline range, it may state as much and its reasons for doing so. See
United States v. Focia,
869 F.3d 1269, 1287 (11th Cir. 2017) (“Where the district
court states that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of any
guideline-calculation error, any error is harmless if the sentence would be reasonable
even if the district court’s guideline calculation was erroneous.”); United States v.
Keene,
470 F.3d 1347, 1349–50 (11th Cir. 2006) (same).
VACATED AND REMANDED.
enhancement than it presented below, but we will not presume that the district court relied on these
grounds when the court expressly cited to the PSR and the addendum as its bases for the ruling.
9
