United States v. Bernabe Palazuelos-Mendez ( 2016 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 14-3032
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BERNABE PALAZUELOS-MENDEZ,
Appellant
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00093-002)
District Judge: Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel
______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 10, 2015
______________
Before: VANASKIE, SLOVITER, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: January 14, 2016)
______________
OPINION*
______________
VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Bernabe Palazuelos-Mendez challenges the five-year term of supervised
release imposed as part of the sentence on his conviction for conspiring to distribute and
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
does not constitute binding precedent.
possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Finding no
substantive or procedural error in the District Court’s decision, we will affirm.
I.
In January and February of 2012, federal agents conducting a wiretap investigation
intercepted a coded communication indicating that Palazuelos-Mendez, a citizen of
Mexico, had arranged a shipment of 15 kilograms of cocaine from Los Angeles to
Philadelphia. Upon arrival, the cocaine was to be delivered to Marvin and Alexis
Velazquez, who would then sell it to their customers.
On February 2, Adrian Diaz, one of Palazuelos-Mendez’s co-conspirators, began
driving a tractor-trailer containing the 15 kilograms of cocaine to Philadelphia. That
same day, Palazuelos-Mendez legally entered the United States in California on a six-
month visa. He arrived in Philadelphia on February 3. The next day, February 4, he
called Diaz and provided him with the address of a business owned by Brian Rodriguez,
another co-conspirator, and explained that they would complete the exchange at that
location.
On February 5, at about 5 a.m., Diaz arrived in Philadelphia and met Palazuelos-
Mendez, Marvin and Alexis Velazquez, and Rodriquez. Diaz removed the 15 kilograms
of cocaine from the tractor-trailer and gave it to Alexis, who placed 12 of the 15
kilograms in a secret compartment inside his Dodge Durango. The remaining three
kilograms, which could not fit inside the compartment, were stored inside Rodriguez’s
business for later retrieval. The group then departed.
2
A few minutes later, federal and local law enforcement officers—who had
observed this entire exchange—stopped the vehicles and arrested the occupants. Acting
pursuant to a federal search warrant, they searched the Dodge Durango and located the
secret compartment containing the 12 kilograms of cocaine. The remaining three
kilograms, however, were never recovered.
On August 22, 2012, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment, charging
Palazuelos-Mendez with one count of conspiracy to distribute five or more kilograms of
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of possession with intent to
distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(A). On May 9, 2013, Palazuelos-Mendez entered into a written agreement to plead
guilty to both charges.
Although Palazuelos-Mendez faced a mandatory minimum prison term of ten
years as well as a mandatory term of supervised release of five years, see 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846, he met the “safety valve” criteria set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(f)(1)–(5). Accordingly, the District Court had the discretion to “impose a sentence
in accordance with the applicable guidelines without regard to any statutory minimum
sentence.” Presentence Report (“PSR”) ¶89. Pursuant to § 5D1.2(a)(1) of the United
States Sentencing Guidelines (“the Guidelines”), Palazuelos-Mendez’s advisory guideline
range for supervised release was two to five years. Because Palazuelos-Mendez was a
deportable alien, however, § 5D1.1(c) of the Guidelines indicated that a term of
3
supervised release should not be imposed. Notably, neither Palazuelos-Mendez nor the
Government brought § 5D1.1(c) of the Guidelines to the District Court’s attention.
On February 19, 2014, the District Court conducted a sentencing hearing at which
it adopted the PSR without objection. Before imposing its sentence, the District Court
explained that Palazuelos-Mendez “played a substantial and significant role in the
transportation of an enormous amount of cocaine from Mexico to California to
Pennsylvania.” App. 106. The District Court also noted that the sophistication of this
scheme indicated that Palazuelos-Mendez “must have had some involvement with people
who traffic[] in drugs before this, ” id. 107, and “was trusted by people who deal in major
quantities of cocaine,” including “major international and interstate drug traffickers,” id.
108.
Despite the serious nature of the crime, the District Court determined that a
downward variance from the advisory guidelines imprisonment range of 70 to 87 months
was warranted based on Palazuelos-Mendez’s employment record, strong family and
community support, and lack of any prior criminal history. The District Court sentenced
Palazuelos-Mendez to a term of imprisonment of 60 months plus a five-year term of
supervised release. Palazuelos-Mendez timely appealed, challenging only the supervised
release aspect of his sentence.
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). Because Palazuelos-
4
Mendez did not object to the PSR or at sentencing, we review the District Court’s
sentence for plain error. United States v. Berger, 689 F.3d 297, 299 (3d Cir. 2012).
Under this standard, we may set aside Palazuelos-Mendez’s term of supervised release
“only if: (1) the District Court erred; (2) the court’s error was clear or obvious; (3)
[Palazuelos-Mendez] can show that the error affected his substantial rights, i.e., that it
prejudiced him; and (4) not correcting the error would seriously impair the fairness,
integrity, or reputation of a judicial proceeding.” United States v. Reynoso, 254 F.3d 467,
469 (3d Cir. 2001). Because the District Court did not err, we will affirm.
Palazuelos-Mendez contends the District Court’s error was clear or obvious
because, in his view, § 5D1.1(c) of the Guidelines indicates that no term of supervised
release should have been imposed in this case. Section 5D1.1(c), however, does nothing
to limit the District Court’s authority to impose a term of supervised release of two to five
years as authorized by § 5D1.2(a)(1) of the Guidelines. To the contrary, the commentary
for the application of § 5D1.1(c) indicates that “[t]he court should . . . consider imposing
a term of supervised release on . . . a [deportable alien] if the court determines it would
provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts and
circumstances of a particular case.” U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1, cmt. n.5.
Here, our review of the record indicates the District Court acted in conformity
with the commentary for the application of § 5D1.1(c), by giving ample consideration to
the facts and circumstances of this case and fashioning an appropriate sentence after
considering the serious nature of the crime, the large quantity of drugs involved,
5
Palazuelos-Mendez’s role in arranging key aspects of the exchange, and his admitted
prior involvement in other drug transactions. Because the District Court acted well
within its discretion, we conclude that any potential error was not plain. See United
States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 107 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc) (concluding “there was no
plain error because the 5–year supervised release term was clearly within the range that
the court was authorized to impose” notwithstanding the district court’s incorrect
conclusion that a five-year, rather than three-year, minimum term was required).
III.
For the aforementioned reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s sentence.
6