United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 27, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20812
UNITED STATES
Plaintiff-Appellee
versus
CESAR AUGUSTO VILLANUEVA; DIMAS ALEXANDER CORTEZ-LUMAS; JOSE
ENCARNACION REYES
Defendants-Appellants
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
4:02-CR-278-3
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:
We are presented with a case of conspiracy to smuggle
undocumented aliens for commercial gain and attempts to aid and
abet the smuggling of undocumented aliens to the United States
for commercial gain. This appeal requires us to determine for
the first time in this circuit whether 8 U.S.C. §
1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) can support a conviction for conduct occurring
outside the United States. We hold that it can and rejecting
other arguments raised by appellants we Affirm.
I.
1
Defendants-Appellants Cesar Augusto Villanueva
(“Villanueva”), Dimas Alexander Cortez-Lumas (“Cortez-Lumas”),
and Jose Encarnacion Reyes (“Reyes”) were found guilty, after a
jury trial, of conspiracy to bring undocumented aliens to the
United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 8 U.S.C. §
1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) (“count one”), and of two counts of aiding and
abetting an attempt to bring two individual undocumented aliens
to the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 8 U.S.C. §
1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). Two co-conspirators, Jose Jairo Enriquez-
Amaya (“Enriquez-Amaya”) and Wilfredo Gonzalez-Rodriguez
(“Gonzalez-Rodriguez”), pled guilty to count one.
Defendants-appellants appeal their convictions and their
sentences. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the
judgment of the district court in all respects.
II.
At trial, the government presented the testimony of five
primary witnesses: Ana Hernandez-Alvarado (“Hernandez-Alvarado”)
and Doris Elizabeth Cedillo (“Cedillo”), who were two of the
approximately 140 immigrants attempting to enter the United
States; Lieutenant Romeo Margarin (“Margarin”), who is a police
officer in El Salvador and who searched Reyes’ house in El
Salvador; Enriquez-Amaya, who pled guilty as a co-conspirator;
and Carlos Archuleta (“Archuleta”), a senior special agent with
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Hernandez-Alvarado and Cedillo described the circumstances
2
surrounding their attempt to immigrate to the U.S. from El
Salvador. The process began when they each paid $1,500 to Reyes’
wife, Judith Bonilla, as a smuggler’s fee. Reyes then led
Hernandez-Alvarado and a group of about 20 immigrants to the El
Salvador-Guatemala border. Villanueva and Cortez-Lumas were
guides who met the group at the El Salvador-Guatemala border and
the Guatemala-Mexico border, respectively. As the group moved
through Guatemala and Mexico, Hernandez-Alvarado witnessed
Villanueva, Cortez-Lumas, and two other guides giving orders to
groups of immigrants, obtaining and distributing food to the
immigrants, and otherwise leading the then-150-person party.
In Mexico, the guides loaded the immigrants into a large
“Thermal King” trailer pulled by a tractor. Villanueva, Cortez-
Lumas, Enriquez-Amaya, and Wilfredo Gonzalez-Rodriguez also
traveled inside of the trailer. The trailer lacked adequate
ventilation, and at one point Enriquez-Amaya and Gonzalez-
Rodriguez used an ax to cut a hole in the top of the trailer.
Mexican police stopped the tractor-trailer on the outskirts of
Monterrey on January 25, 2002 and placed everyone under arrest.
The northbound journey of the would be illegal immigrants was
thus concluded before they reached the United States border.
Lieutenant Margarin, of the National Police Force of El
Salvador, found a receipt for approximately $15,000 that Reyes
had written out to a well-known immigrant trafficker in El
Salvador. He also found several notebooks containing names and
3
figures. Special Agent Archuleta testified that one of these
notebooks had a “pollo”1 list with several hundred names of
aliens who had been smuggled or were to be smuggled. On a page
dated January 15, 2002, Archuleta found entries for Hernandez-
Alvarado and Cedillo. Archuleta was unable to locate the name
Cesar Augusto Villanueva, Dimas Alexander Cortez-Lumas, or Jose
Encarnacion Reyes listed anywhere in the notebooks.
Enriquez-Amaya identified Jose Narcisso Ramirez-Ventura as
the overall leader of the smuggling organization and Cortez-Lumas
as the person in charge of coordinating this particular trip.
Enriquez-Amaya identified Villanueva as his immediate superior on
the trip, and he testified that Villanueva led a group of 20-25
immigrants. Additionally, Enriquez-Amaya testified that
Villanueva and another guide told him that they worked for Reyes.
Soon after intercepting the tractor trailer, Mexican
authorities released and repatriated 144 of the aliens. Although
U.S. funds paid for the repatriations, Archuleta was not involved
in the decision and he was not aware of it until after it
occurred. Mexican authorities tried and convicted the driver and
co-driver of the trailer, and held Villanueva, Cortez-Lumas,
Enriquez-Amaya, and Gonzalez-Rodriguez, who had been identified
by many of the aliens as guides.
However, a court in Mexico later ordered the release of the
1
“Pollo” is a Spanish word for a chicken and is commonly
used by alien smugglers to describe their human cargo.
4
four men charged as guides. It was at this point that Archuleta
initiated a prosecution of the four men by U.S. authorities.
III.
We first consider defendants-appellants’ challenges to their
convictions.
A.
Appellants first argue that the district court erred by
finding that Congress intended 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) to apply to
extraterritorial conduct.2
“It is a longstanding principle of American law ‘that
legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is
meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States.’” Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197, 204 (1993)
(quoting EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991)).
Several recent Supreme Court decisions reinforce this
presumption. See, e.g., Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509
U.S. 155, 176 (1993) (there must be affirmative evidence that
Congress intended extraterritorial application); F. Hoffman-La
Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 124 S.Ct. 2359, 2366
(2004) (the Supreme Court “ordinarily construes ambiguous
statutes to avoid unreasonable interference with the sovereign
2
Appellants were convicted of conspiracy, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 371. However, it is the underlying substantive crime
of attempting to bring aliens to the United States for the
purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain that is
relevant in determining subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
United States v. Baker, 609 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir. 1980).
5
authority of other nations”). Thus, the crux of this issue is
whether Congress intended 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) to apply
to extraterritorial conduct.
Such intent can be inferred when limiting the locus of a
statute to U.S. territory would greatly curtail the scope and
usefulness of the statute and leave open a large immunity for
frauds that are as easily committed by citizens
extraterritorially as at home. United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S.
94, 98 (1922).
1. The language of the statute, the legislative history, and
the nature of the law indicate that Congress intended § 1324(a)
to apply to extraterritorial conduct.
The language of the statute itself indicates that Congress
intended it to apply to extraterritorial conduct.3 First, the
statute uses the phrase “brings to . . . the United States,”
rather than “brings into . . . the United States.” In 1986,
Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which
completely overhauled § 1324(a), including a change from the
3
8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) provides:
(2) Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard
of the fact that an alien has not received prior official
authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United
States, brings to or attempts to bring to the United
States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless
of any official action which may later be taken with
respect to such alien shall, for each alien in respect to
whom a violation of this paragraph occurs – . . . (B) in
the case of – . . . (ii) an offense done for the purpose
of commercial advantage or private financial gain . . .
be fined under Title 18, and shall be imprisoned . . . .
6
phrase “brings into” to the phrase “brings to.”4 The legislative
history indicates that Congress made the change in response to
the decision in United States v. Anaya, 509 F. Supp. 289, (S.D.
Fla. 1980)(en banc) (aff’d on other grounds, sub nom. United
States v. Zayas-Morales, 685 F.2d 1272 (11th Cir. 1982)); H.R.
Rep. No. 682(I), 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 65-66 (1986), reprinted in
1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5669-70. In Anaya, the court held that
“brings into” is synonymous with “entering,” so that a
transporter of illegal immigrants could not be guilty if the
immigrants he transported were not allowed entry into the United
States. 509 F.Supp. at 297. In response, Congress expanded the
scope of § 1324(a) by, inter alia, changing the phrase “brings
into” to “brings to” in order to “deter potential transporters
from inundating U.S. ports of entry with undocumented aliens.”
H.R. Rep. No. 682(I) at 66. Such an alteration strongly suggests
that Congress intended extraterritorial application because it
shows that Congress was concerned about activity taking place
outside of the United States.
Second, the statute criminalizes attempts. While some
4
The pre-1986 version of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) provided:
Any person, including the owner, operator, pilot, master,
commanding officer, agent, or consignee of any means of
transportation who (1) brings into or lands in the United
States, by any means of transportation or otherwise, or
attempts, by himself or through another, to bring into or
land in the United States, by any means of transportation
or otherwise . . . any alien . . . shall be guilty of a
felony . . . .
7
failed attempts will include activity within the United States,
many, if not most, will take place extraterritorially. This is
especially true because of the 1986 amendment to § 1324(a), which
expanded the scope of § 1324(a) to include attempts to “bring to”
to the United States. A failed attempt to “enter” the United
States could include an attempt that was foiled after the
immigrant had entered U.S. territory.5 However, a failed attempt
to “bring to” the United States, at least when by land, will
ordinarily be stopped outside of U.S. territory.
Third, the context of immigration statutes make it natural
to expect that Congress intends for them to reach
extraterritorial conduct. See United States v. Baker, 609 F.2d
134, 136 (5th Cir. 1980)(Congressional intent for a statute to
apply extraterritorially “may be inferred from the nature of the
offenses and Congress’ other legislative efforts to eliminate the
type of crime involved” when there is no express intention on the
face of the statute.). Immigration statutes, by their very
nature, pertain to activity at or near international borders. It
is natural to expect that Congress intends for laws that regulate
5
As the Ninth Circuit explained in United States v.
Gonzalez-Torres, federal courts have recognized since 1908 that
“entering” the United States requires more than mere physical
presence within the country. 309 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir. 2002).
“To ‘enter,’ an alien must cross the United States border free
from official restraint.” Id. “Official restraint” may take the
form of surveillance that is unbeknownst to the alien, because
although the alien has crossed the border, he does not have the
freedom to go at large and mix with the population. Id.
(internal citations omitted).
8
conduct that occurs near international borders to apply to some
activity that takes place on the foreign side of those borders.
2. Decisions of this Court analyzing drug smuggling laws
support a finding that Congress intended 8 U.S.C. §
1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) to apply to extraterritorial conduct.
In the context of drug smuggling laws, this Court has found
the necessary congressional intent to overcome the presumption
against extraterritorial application in laws that are similar to
§ 1324(a). In United States v. Baker, the defendants were
arrested on an American flag vessel in international waters, but
within the twelve-mile “customs waters” area, for possession of
51,280 pounds of marijuana. 609 F.2d 134, 135 (5th Cir. 1980).
We held that “so long as it is clear that the intended
distribution would occur within the United States . . .
jurisdiction may be maintained, where defendants are apprehended
outside the territorial waters, and inside the contiguous zone.”
Id. at 139.
In a similar case decided just three weeks later, we again
found that an anti-drug smuggling law had extraterritorial
application. United States v. Perez-Herrera, 610 F.2d 289 (5th
Cir. 1980). In Perez-Herrera, the defendants, who were all
American citizens, were arrested aboard an American-registered
ship in international waters approximately seventy miles from the
United States. Id. We determined that “Congress intended that
the prohibition of attempts to import drugs should apply to
attempts made wholly outside of our borders.” Id. at 291. We
9
based this conclusion on legislative history and “practical
considerations related to the operation of the statute.” Id.
Specifically, we were concerned about setting up a “free-zone”
where smugglers could safely await opportunities to move
contraband into U.S. territory. Id. at 292.
In Perez-Herrera, we also determined that the attempt to
smuggle marijuana into the U.S. had “real and significant
effects” within this country, even without any criminal activity
in the U.S., because each smuggling attempt further burdens U.S.
enforcement agencies. Id.
The instant case is analogous to Baker and Perez-Herrera in
several important respects: the intended destination was the
United States; a finding against extraterritorial application
could create a “free zone” just beyond the border; and attempts
that take place wholly outside of U.S. territory burden U.S.
enforcement agencies.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we find that § 1324(a)
applies to extraterritorial conduct.6
B.
Defendants-appellants next contend that the government
denied their Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process, and
their Fifth Amendment due process rights, by repatriating
6
This conclusion comports with the conclusion reached by
our sister circuit in United States v. Delgado-Garcia, 374 F.3d
1337, 1343-44 (D.C. Cir. 2004)(rehearing en banc denied)(holding
that § 1324(a) applied to extraterritorial conduct).
10
approximately 140 witnesses to their native countries before
defense counsel could interview them.
1. Standard of Review
We review constitutional claims de novo. United States v.
Romero-Cruz, 201 F.3d 374, 377 (5th Cir. 2000). In order to show
that the deprivation of witness testimony amounted to a violation
of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process “he
must make some plausible showing of how their testimony would
have been both material and favorable to his defense.” United
States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 (1982) (citing
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 16 (1967)). With respect to a
Fifth Amendment due process claim, a defendant must at least
demonstrate that the testimony would have been material to his
defense. Id. at 872.
Due process guarantees that a criminal defendant will be
treated with “that fundamental fairness essential to the
very concept of justice. In order to declare a denial of
it we must find that the absence of that fairness fatally
infected the trial; the acts complained of must be of
such quality as necessarily prevents a fair trial.”
Id. (quoting Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941)).
Such a denial of fairness on the basis of the deportation of
witnesses cannot be shown without “some explanation of how their
testimony would have been favorable and material.” Id. (citing
United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977); United States v.
Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971)). In addition, due process has been
violated “only if there is a reasonable likelihood that the
11
testimony could have affected the trier of fact,” considering the
entire record. Id. at 873-74 and 874 n.10.
2. The government did not deny the defendants’ Fifth or
Sixth Amendment rights to due process by repatriating the
witnesses in this case.
To support their argument, defendants-appellants cite
witness statements taken by Mexican authorities from the
approximately 140 witnesses who were repatriated. Several of the
witnesses either identify individuals other than the defendants
as collectors of the smuggling fee or as guides, or the witnesses
fail to identify one of the defendants as a guide.
This evidence is not sufficient to satisfy the defendants-
appellants’ burden. The government presented the eyewitness
testimony of a co-conspirator and two immigrants, each of whom
identified the defendants as guides. The statements from other
witnesses cited by defendants-appellants do not negate the
testimony of the government’s eyewitnesses. The statements, even
if accepted by the jury as true, can only prove that other
individuals, in addition to these defendants, acted as guides.
Accordingly, we find that the defendants-appellants failed
to make a plausible showing that the repatriated witnesses would
have provided testimony that was both material and favorable and
reasonably likely to influence the jury. Therefore, the
defendants-appellants have not demonstrated that the repatriation
of the witnesses violated either their Fifth or Sixth Amendment
rights.
12
C.
Defendants-appellants next contend that the government
violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment by
prosecuting them in the United States after charges had been
dismissed in a Mexican court. Whether a second prosecution
violates the Double Jeopardy Clause is a question of law that we
review de novo. United States v. Smith, 354 F.3d 390, 398 (5th
Cir. 2003).
The Double Jeopardy Clause only bars successive prosecutions
by the same sovereign. Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 88
(1985). In order to overcome the dual sovereignty doctrine,
appellants have to establish that the prosecution in Mexico was a
sham prosecution.7 Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 122-24
(1959). Although United States officials assisted the Mexican
government, defendants-appellants presented no evidence that the
United States had any ability to control the prosecution, so they
have failed to prove that the Mexican prosecution was a sham.
Accordingly, we find that this prosecution did not violate
the Double Jeopardy Clause.
D.
Villanueva contends that the evidence presented at trial was
7
We have previously questioned whether the sham
prosecution doctrine even exists. See United States v. Angleton,
314 F.3d 767, 773-74 (5th Cir. 2002). Because we find that there
is no evidence of a sham prosecution in the instant case, we do
not need to reach the question of the existence of the doctrine.
13
insufficient to convict him of aiding and abetting the attempt to
bring to the United States Satia Elizabeth Miranda-Alvarado and
Doris Elizabeth Diaz-Cedillo, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §
1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Specifically, Villanueva
contends that his acts did not unequivocally demonstrate an
intention to help these two women enter the United States.
Instead, he argues that he intended to drop the women off at safe
houses on the Mexican side of the border, and the women would
later enter the United States on their own.
Our standard of review for assessing a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence is whether, considering all the
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational
trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.8 United
States v. Peters, 283 F.3d 300, 307 (5th Cir. 2002).
To aid and abet under § 2, a defendant must associate with
the criminal venture, participate in it and seek by his actions
to make the venture succeed. Id. at 308.
The government proved each of the elements of the offense by
8
The parties agree that 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) has
five elements: the government must prove that each defendant (1)
brought or attempted to bring an alien into the United States;
(2) knew the person was an alien; (3) either knew or acted in
reckless disregard of the fact that the alien had not received
prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the
United States; (4) intended to commit a criminal act by bringing
or attempting to bring an alien to the United States; and (5)
committed the offense for commercial advantage or private
financial gain.
14
presenting the eyewitness testimony of Cedillo, Hernandez-
Alvarado, and Enriquez-Amaya. All three witnesses identified
Villanueva as a guide who helped Cedillo and Hernandez-Alvarado
in their effort to enter the United States illegally.
Additionally, Special Agent Archuleta testified that Villanueva’s
name was absent from the “pollo” list that he found in Reyes’
home in El Salvador. At the very least, the evidence
demonstrated that Villanueva associated with the criminal
venture, that he participated in it by acting as a guide, and
that he sought to make the venture succeed by aiding immigrants
as they traveled from El Salvador to Mexico on the way to the
United States. Villanueva knew that the ultimate goal was to
illegally enter the United States, and he actively aided that
goal.
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, we find that the evidence was sufficient to convict
Villanueva of aiding and abetting the attempt to bring Cedillo
and Alvarado to the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. §
1324(a)(2)(B)(ii).
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the convictions
of Villanueva, Cortez-Lumas, and Reyes.
IV.
Appellants also challenge various aspects of their
sentences. In light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Blakely
and Booker, we have reconsidered the process by which we review a
15
judge’s sentencing decisions. United States v. Mares, ___ F.3d
___, ___, 2005 WL 503715 (5th Cir.); Blakely v. Washington, 124
S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4573 (2004);
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed. 621, 2005
U.S. LEXIS 628 (2005).
After Booker, when a district court has imposed a sentence
under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”),
we continue to review its interpretation and application of the
Guidelines de novo. United States v. Villegas, ___ F.3d ___,
___, 2005 WL 627963 at *3-4 (5th Cir.).
A.
Villanueva contends, for the first time on appeal, that the
Guidelines are unconstitutional. For an appellant, such as
Villanueva, who raised the issue of the constitutionality of the
mandatory Guidelines for the first time on appeal, we review his
claim for plain error. Mares, 2005 WL 503715 at *7.
This Court finds plain error when: (1) there was an error;
(2) the error was clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected
the defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993); Mares, 2005 WL 503715 at *8. “If all
three conditions are met an appellate court may then exercise its
discretion to notice a forfeited error but only if (4) the error
seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation
of judicial proceedings.” Mares, 2005 WL 503715, at *8 (quoting
16
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002)).
The first prong of the plain error test is satisfied in this
case because Villanueva’s sentence was enhanced, under a
mandatory Guidelines system, based on findings made by the judge
that went beyond the facts admitted by Villanueva or found by the
jury. See Mares, 2005 WL 503715, at *8. The second prong is
also satisfied because, after Booker, such error is “plain.” Id.
Villanueva cannot, however, satisfy the third prong of the
plain error test. As we stated in Mares, “the pertinent question
is whether [Villanueva] demonstrated that the sentencing judge –
sentencing under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one –
would have reached a significantly different result.” Id. at *9.
As in Mares, there is no indication in the record in the instant
case that gives us any clue as to whether the sentencing judge
would have reached a significantly different result. As such,
Villanueva cannot carry his burden of proof of demonstrating that
the result would have likely been different had the judge been
sentencing under the Booker advisory regime rather than the pre-
Booker mandatory regime. Accordingly, we find no plain error.
B.
Villanueva contends that the district court erred in
adjusting his sentence, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5), for
intentionally or recklessly creating a substantial risk of bodily
injury to the aliens he transported inside of a Thermal King
17
trailer. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5) provides for a two-level
increase “[i]f the offense involved intentionally or recklessly
creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to
another person.” Application note six to § 2L1.1 provides
several examples of the type of conduct to which (b)(5) applies:
“transporting persons in the trunk or engine compartment of a
motor vehicle, carrying substantially more passengers than the
rated capacity of a motor vehicle or vessel, or harboring persons
in a crowded, dangerous, or inhumane condition.” U.S.S.G. §
2L1.1 cmt. n. 6.
Villanueva acted as a guide in a conspiracy that involved
transporting approximately 140 people in a cramped trailer at
highway speeds and with inadequate ventilation. This is
precisely the type of transportation that the application note
gives as an example. The vehicle had substantially more
passengers than its rated capacity, and the trailer was crowded
and dangerous because of a lack of ventilation and because of the
risk of an accident.
Therefore, we affirm the district court’s application of the
two-level adjustment pursuant to § 2L1.1(b)(5).
C.
Villanueva contends that the district court should have
granted a reduction to his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2
for being a minor or minimal participant. Whether he was a minor
or minimal participant is a factual determination that we review
18
for clear error.9 United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216,
221 (5th Cir. 1989). A factual finding is not clearly erroneous
if it is plausible in light of the record read as a whole.
United States v. Valencia, 44 F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1995).
The district court held that Villanueva was an average
participant despite his minor role in the smuggling network as a
whole because he was only held accountable for the criminal
activity in which he was personally involved. The reduction for
being a minor or minimal participant remains available for a
defendant, like Villanueva, who was only held accountable for the
conduct in which he was personally involved. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2,
cmt. n. 3(A). However, § 3B1.2 only applies when a defendant is
“substantially less culpable than the average participant.” Id.
It is not enough that a defendant “does less than other
participants; in order to qualify as a minor participant, a
defendant must have been peripheral to the advancement of the
illicit activity.” United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 446-
47 (5th Cir. 2001).
In the instant case, Villanueva acted as a guide in multiple
9
Post-Booker, we continue to apply the same standard of
review to claims of erroneous fact-finding with respect to the
application of adjustments, i.e., we review for clear error. See
United States v. Holmes, --- F.3d ---,--- 2005 WL 768942, *16
(5th Cir. Apr. 6 2005). Cf. United States v. Doe, 398 F.3d 1254,
1257 & n.5 (10th Cir. 2005) (“When reviewing a district court’s
application of the sentencing Guidelines, we review any factual
findings for clear error. . . .”); United States v. Hazelwood,
398 F.3d 792, 795, 800-01 (6th Cir. 2005).
19
countries, over an extended period of time, as the group of
immigrants made its way from El Salvador to Mexico. His
contribution to the illicit activity was more than peripheral.
Thus, the district court’s finding that Villanueva was not a
minor participant was plausible in light of the record as a whole
and we affirm that finding.
D.
Reyes contends that the district court erred in finding that
he was a leader and enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
3B1.1. The district court’s determination that a defendant was a
leader or organizer under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) is a factual
finding that we review for clear error. United States v.
Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163, 173 (5th Cir. 2002).
He argues that the presentence investigation report
erroneously attributes some leadership activity to him because of
confusion caused by multiple co-conspirators using the nickname
“Chico.” Even if we were to accept Reyes’ contention and ignore
the evidence that he identifies, there would still be sufficient
evidence to support the district court’s finding that Reyes was a
leader or an organizer. Among other things, Reyes’ house in El
Salvador was the assembly point for many of the aliens; his wife
collected the initial payments for the smuggling fees for many of
the aliens; the “pollo” list for this and other smuggling trips
were found in Reyes’ house in El Salvador; he recruited and hired
the driver of the tractor-trailer, Felipe Torres Escudero; and he
20
was in charge of this particular smuggling expedition.
Therefore, even if we accept all of Reyes’ assertions, the
district court’s finding that Reyes was a leader or organizer
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 was plausible in light of the record
as a whole and we affirm that finding.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is
in all things AFFIRMED.
21