United States v. Jose Carrillo ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 19-2247
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Jose Valentin Carrillo
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs
    ____________
    Submitted: September 25, 2020
    Filed: December 15, 2020
    ____________
    Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    STRAS, Circuit Judge.
    Jose Carrillo received a 190-month sentence after he pleaded guilty to two
    drug counts, one for conspiracy and another for possession. Although he claims that
    the conspiracy charge violated double jeopardy and that his overall sentence is
    substantively unreasonable, we affirm.
    I.
    Carrillo was involved in two drug deals spanning two states. The first one
    was in South Dakota, where Carrillo brokered a sale of about a kilogram of
    methamphetamine between a confidential informant and a drug supplier by the name
    of Erik Rodriguez-Venegas. The second one happened about a month later and
    involved Javier Romero Ochoa, whom Carrillo recruited to transport several
    kilograms of methamphetamine. Law enforcement found the drugs in Ochoa’s car
    during a traffic stop in Iowa.
    These two transactions led to parallel proceedings, one in each state, both in
    federal district court. As relevant here, the government filed one conspiracy charge
    in South Dakota against Carrillo, Rodriguez-Venegas, and others. See 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), 846. A little over two months later, the government added a conspiracy
    charge in Iowa—this time accusing Carrillo of plotting with Ochoa to sell drugs—
    to an existing count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. See
    
    18 U.S.C. § 2
    ; 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846.
    Carrillo tried to put the brakes on the Iowa prosecution—the one now before
    us on appeal—because he believed he was being prosecuted twice for the same
    conspiracy. His argument was that the Iowa indictment had to be dismissed on
    double-jeopardy grounds. See U.S. Const. amend. V. The district court1 disagreed,
    concluding that jeopardy had yet to attach in either case.
    The double-jeopardy argument turned up once again after he decided to plead
    guilty in both cases. First came his guilty plea in Iowa, followed by a guilty plea in
    South Dakota, where he received a 51-month sentence. Then came another attempt
    to dismiss the conspiracy charge in Iowa. This time, the district court rejected the
    argument because, by pleading guilty, he had waived it. Critically, Carrillo never
    1
    The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Southern District of Iowa.
    -2-
    raised his double-jeopardy concerns in South Dakota, despite trying twice in Iowa
    and failing each time.
    Sentencing in Iowa came last. Based on Carrillo’s military service, work
    record, and mental-health struggles, the district court varied downward and imposed
    a 190-month concurrent sentence on each count.
    II.
    The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “[n]o
    person shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
    limb.” U.S. Const. amend. V. More commonly referred to as the Double Jeopardy
    Clause, it “protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after
    acquittal . . . [,] against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction[,]
    [a]nd . . . against multiple punishments for the same offense.” Brown v. Ohio, 
    432 U.S. 161
    , 165 (1977) (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted).
    Like any other constitutional right that is “personal” to the defendant,
    however, double jeopardy can be waived. United States v. Herzog, 
    644 F.2d 713
    ,
    716 (8th Cir. 1981); see also Brady v. United States, 
    24 F.2d 399
    , 405 (8th Cir. 1928)
    (“The constitutional immunity from second jeopardy is a personal privilege which
    the accused may waive.”). One way is by pleading guilty to two facially distinct
    offenses, which operates as a concession that the defendant “has committed two
    separate crimes.” United States v. Broce, 
    488 U.S. 563
    , 569–70 (1989). So when
    he pleaded guilty, Carrillo waived his double-jeopardy objection “unless ‘the face
    of the record’ at the time the plea was entered show[ed] that the district court did not
    have the power to enter the second conviction or to impose sentence.” United States
    v. Pierre, 
    870 F.3d 845
    , 848 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Broce, 
    488 U.S. at 569
    ).
    The district court applied these principles and concluded, after closely
    reviewing the indictments and other evidence in the South Dakota and Iowa
    prosecutions, that Carrillo had waived any double-jeopardy violation by pleading
    -3-
    guilty to each conspiracy charge. See United States v. Pierre, 
    795 F.3d 847
    , 849–50
    (8th Cir. 2015). For that reason, the court denied Carrillo’s second motion to
    dismiss.
    The district court reached the right conclusion, but it overlooked an important
    step.2 As we have explained, the double-jeopardy analysis focuses on the record as
    it existed “at the time the plea was entered.” Pierre, 870 F.3d at 848. Recall that
    “at the time” Carrillo pleaded guilty in Iowa, id., he had not done so in South Dakota,
    meaning that jeopardy had not attached there. See United States v. Rea, 
    300 F.3d 952
    , 957 (8th Cir. 2002) (suggesting that the earliest point that jeopardy might attach
    is when a court accepts a guilty plea). When he pleaded guilty in this case, in other
    words, he was not “twice put in jeopardy,” having not yet been placed in jeopardy a
    first time. U.S. Const. amend. V; see United v. Lewis, 
    844 F.3d 1007
    , 1010 (8th Cir.
    2017). Under this unusual scenario, Carrillo should have filed the motion to dismiss
    in South Dakota, after he pleaded guilty in Iowa. See Willhauck v. Flanagan, 
    448 U.S. 1323
    , 1325–26 (1980) (Brennan, J., in chambers) (explaining that “once
    jeopardy . . . attach[es] in one of” two simultaneous proceedings, the defendant can
    “make his claim before the second trial judge, at which time the courts can give due
    consideration to his” double-jeopardy argument (emphasis added)). For these
    reasons, the district court could not have erred when it refused to dismiss the Iowa
    conspiracy charge.
    III.
    Nor is Carrillo’s 190-month prison sentence substantively unreasonable. See
    United States v. Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing
    this type of challenge for an abuse of discretion). As we have explained, “it is nearly
    inconceivable” that once a district court has varied downward, it “abuse[s] its
    2
    The reason may have been its mistaken assumption that Carrillo had first
    pleaded guilty in South Dakota and then in Iowa, rather than the other way around.
    -4-
    discretion in not varying downward [even] further.” United States v. McKanry, 
    628 F.3d 1010
    , 1022 (8th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted).
    This case is no exception. To be sure, as Carrillo argues, the court could have
    placed even more weight on three mitigating factors: his exemplary military service,
    mental-health struggles, and lack of criminal history. But “the mere fact that the
    court could have weighed the sentencing factors differently does not amount to an
    abuse of discretion.” United States v. Hall, 
    825 F.3d 373
    , 375 (8th Cir. 2016) (per
    curiam).
    IV.
    We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -5-