United States v. Jesus Godinez-Contreras ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2667
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jesus Godinez-Contreras
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: April 10, 2023
Filed: July 20, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jesus Godinez-Contreras received a 168-month prison sentence after a jury
found him guilty of participating in a drug conspiracy. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1), 846. Although he argues that the sentence is too long, we affirm.
First, the record supports the district court’s 1 denial of a minor-role reduction.
See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) (granting a two-point reduction in the base offense level
“[i]f the defendant was a minor participant in [the] criminal activity”); see also
United States v. Campbell-Martin, 17 F.4th 807, 817 (8th Cir. 2021) (reviewing for
clear error). His “deep[] involve[ment]” included storing drugs, initiating wire
transfers, and driving a co-conspirator to and from drug transactions. Campbell-
Martin, 17 F.4th at 817 (citation omitted); see United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741
F.3d 878, 880–81 (8th Cir. 2013) (affirming a no-reduction finding, even though the
defendant acted as “a courier in a single [drug] transaction”). It does not matter that
others may have “had a little bit more involvement in the” conspiracy. United States
v. Garcia, 946 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).
Second, the overall sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (permitting courts to “apply
a presumption of reasonableness” to a within-Guidelines sentence (quoting Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007))). The district court sufficiently considered
the statutory sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an
improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Sherrod,
966 F.3d 748, 754–55 (8th Cir. 2020). There was no abuse of discretion, in other
words, in giving Godinez-Contreras a longer sentence based on his extensive
criminal history and less-than-sincere attempt at cooperation. See United States v.
Becerra, 958 F.3d 725, 731–32 (8th Cir. 2020); see also United States v. Fry, 792
F.3d 884, 893 (8th Cir. 2015).
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska.
-2-