United States v. Mendez , 120 F. App'x 531 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                          United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                December 30, 2004
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 04-50474
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    FERMIN MENDEZ,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:03-CR-1961-1-DB
    --------------------
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Fermin Mendez appeals the 65-month concurrent sentences
    imposed by the district court after his guilty-plea convictions
    for conspiracy to import marijuana; importation of marijuana;
    conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana; and
    possession with intent to distribute marijuana.     See 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    , 846, 952, 960, 963.    Mendez argues that the district
    court erred in applying a U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) enhancement to his
    sentence based upon his management of a person who was not a
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
    under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    No.04-50474
    -2-
    knowing participant in the offense.    He also argues for the first
    time on appeal that his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington,
    
    124 S. Ct. 2531
     (2004).   He concedes that his Blakely argument is
    foreclosed by United States v. Pineiro, 
    377 F.3d 464
    , 473 (5th
    Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004)
    (No. 04-5263), but states that he is raising it to preserve it
    for possible Supreme Court review
    The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level upward
    adjustment to a defendant’s offense level if he is a manager of
    criminal activity involving fewer than five participants or the
    offense is not otherwise extensive.    See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c).
    The commentary to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 provides that a “‘participant’
    is a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of
    the offense, but need not have been convicted.”    U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1
    comment. (n.1).   The commentary further provides that to qualify
    for an adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, the defendant must have
    been the manager of one or more participants.     Id. at comment.
    (n.2.); see also United States v. Gross, 
    26 F.3d 552
    , 555 (5th
    Cir. 1994).   We review the district court’s interpretation and
    application of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 de novo and its underlying
    factual findings for clear error.     Pineiro, 
    377 F.3d at 474
    .
    Mendez and Erin Kay Montoya were charged with the above-
    noted counts.   While Mendez pleaded guilty to the counts, Montoya
    asserted that she had been duped by Mendez into bringing
    marijuana from Mexico into the United States, and she pleaded
    No.04-50474
    -3-
    guilty to misprision of a felony.    The presentence report (“PSR”)
    recounted Montoya’s version of the events and recommended
    enhancing Mendez’s base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c)
    because Mendez was the manager of the criminal activity.    Mendez
    objected to the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 enhancement in part because
    Montoya denied having any knowing involvement in the criminal
    activity.
    Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B),
    the court must rule on any disputed portion of the PSR or other
    controverted matter or determine that a ruling is unnecessary
    either because the matter will not affect sentencing, or because
    the court will not consider the matter in sentencing.    We cannot
    discern any express or implicit resolution by the district court
    of the issue whether Montoya was a “participant” in the criminal
    activity within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1.    In addition,
    the PSR does not indicate that Montoya was criminally responsible
    for the offenses to which Mendez pleaded guilty.    Accordingly, we
    VACATE Mendez’s sentences and REMAND to the district court for a
    resolution of this disputed issue.     See United States v. Maloof,
    
    205 F.3d 819
    , 823-24 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Pofahl,
    
    990 F.2d 1456
    , 1486 (5th Cir. 1993).
    AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART FOR
    RESENTENCING.