United States v. Justin Tijerina Garza

Case: 12-15915 Date Filed: 12/04/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15915
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00138-TJC-JRK-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESUS TIJERINA GARZA,
a.k.a. Guero,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 4, 2013)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Tijerina Garza appeals his sentence of 480 months of imprisonment,
following his plea of guilty to conspiring to distribute five or more kilograms of
Case: 12-15915 Date Filed: 12/04/2013 Page: 2 of 4
cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 846. Garza challenges the enhancement of his sentence
for his role as a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy. See United States
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(b) (Nov. 2011). We affirm.
A defendant is subject to a three-level enhancement of his base offense level
if he “was a manager or supervisor . . . and the criminal activity involved five or
more participants or was otherwise extensive . . . .” Id. Garza does not dispute
that the drug conspiracy involved five or more participants, so we address only
whether Garza served in a managerial role. To determine the nature of a
defendant’s role, we consider “the exercise of decision making authority, the
nature of participation in the commission of the offense, . . . the claimed right to a
larger share of the [proceeds], the degree of participation in planning or organizing
the offense, . . . and the degree of control and authority exercised over others.” Id.
cmt. n.4. The three-level enhancement applies if the defendant was “the organizer,
leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants.” Id. cmt. n.2.
The district court did not clearly err by enhancing Garza’s sentence. Garza
controlled several members of the conspiracy by providing cocaine for them to
distribute and by requiring them to return the proceeds of sales to him. See United
States v. Matthews, 168 F.3d 1234, 1249–50 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v.
Howard, 923 F.2d 1500, 1502–03 (11th Cir. 1991). Distributor Jose Solorio
testified that Garza dictated the price charged for each kilogram of cocaine and
2
Case: 12-15915 Date Filed: 12/04/2013 Page: 3 of 4
how much cocaine he would supply, and both Solorio and distributor Salomon
Robles testified that Garza decided where to transfer the cocaine. Distributors
Solorio, Agustin Santos-Garcia, and Huber Dominguez-Diaz testified that they
withheld a small profit before transferring the rest of the drug proceeds to Garza
and that they had to pay Garza for the cocaine even if it could not be sold. Garza
also managed and owned assets of the drug conspiracy. See United States v.
Glover, 179 F.3d 1300, 1303 n.5 (11th Cir. 1999) (explaining that the managerial
role involves “both management of people and . . . things”). Agent Florentino
Rosales of the Drug Enforcement Agency described a ledger in which Garza
recorded the amounts of cocaine received, debts incurred, and payments made by
three of his distributors, and Agent Douglas Allen Griffith testified that Garza
purchased with cash a home that he used to store and repackage cocaine and that
he transported the cocaine in a compartment he had added to a red Ford Explorer
vehicle.
Garza argues that he acted at the behest of his drug supplier, Domingo
Rodriguez-Mederos, but the district court was entitled to reach a contrary finding.
Distributors Robles and Leticia Santos-Garcia testified about circumventing
Rodriguez-Mederos and buying cocaine directly from Garza, who operated the
drug conspiracy even after Rodriguez-Mederos was deported to Mexico. But even
if Garza was subordinate to Rodriguez-Mederos, that fact “does not absolve
3
Case: 12-15915 Date Filed: 12/04/2013 Page: 4 of 4
[Garza] of the supervisory role he played in coordinating and managing” the drug
conspiracy. See United States v. Jones, 933 F.2d 1541, 1547 (11th Cir. 1991).
We AFFIRM Garza’s sentence.
4