United States v. Jeremy Aswegan

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2026
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jeremy Aswegan
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: March 17, 2023
Filed: May 23, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jeremy Aswegan pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court 1 sentenced
him to 262 months’ imprisonment. Aswegan appeals, challenging the applicability
1
The Honorable Charles J. Williams, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.
of an importation Sentencing Guidelines enhancement and asserting the sentence
imposed was substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
The district court calculated Aswegan’s base offense level at 38. It adjusted
upward the offense level by two levels for drug importation, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5),
and another two levels for possession of a dangerous weapon, U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(b)(1). It granted a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility,
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. With a total offense level of 39 and in criminal history category
I, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 262-327 months. The district court
denied Aswegan’s motion for a downward variance.
As to Aswegan’s challenge to the Sentencing Guidelines calculation, a two-
level enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(5) applies if the offense involved the
importation of methamphetamine. Because Aswegan did not object to the
Sentencing Guidelines calculation below, we review for plain error. United States
v. Harrell, 982 F.3d 1137, 1140 (8th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Law enforcement
officers discovered that Daniel Manjarraz, a member of a drug trafficking
organization based in Sinaloa, Mexico, was sending large shipments of
methamphetamine to Sandra Deyerle, a local drug dealer in Iowa. Deyerle in turn
distributed the methamphetamine to Aswegan and other street-level dealers.
Communications in the record show that Deyerle and Manjarrez discussed directing
“Jeremy” to send money to Culiacan, Sinaloa. Aswegan sent money orders
consistent with these communications. When coupled with the size of the money
orders (each were $950, a sum used by drug dealers to reduce suspicion) and the
characteristics of the methamphetamine, which pointed towards manufacture in
Mexico, the district court’s factual findings are more than ample to support the
importation enhancement. The district court committed no error, plain or otherwise,
when it applied an importation enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5).
Aswegan contends his lack of criminal history, age, medical condition, and
the nature and circumstances of the offense warrant a lower sentence. We review
Aswegan’s substantive reasonableness challenge to his sentence under a deferential
-2-
abuse of discretion standard. See United States v. Gifford, 991 F.3d 944, 946 (8th
Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citation omitted). A sentence within the Sentencing
Guidelines range “is presumed to be substantively reasonable.” United States v.
Maid, 772 F.3d 1118, 1121 (8th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
The record reflects that the district court considered the relevant factors under
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the large-scale nature of the drug conspiracy,
Aswegan’s role in the conspiracy, and Aswegan’s history and characteristics such
as his upbringing, education, medical issues, age, and limited and dated criminal
record. After weighing the factors, the district court imposed a sentence at the low
end of the calculated Guidelines range. Aswegan’s disagreement with the court’s
balancing of the relevant considerations is insufficient to establish an abuse of the
court’s wide sentencing discretion. See United States v. Ruiz-Salazar, 785 F.3d
1270, 1273 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citations omitted).
Because Aswegan’s sentence was not premised on an improper Sentencing
Guidelines calculation and is not substantively unreasonable, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-3-