United States v. Jacobo, No. 12-1424 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendant pleaded guilty to failure to appear at a change of plea hearing in a drug trafficking case. The court affirmed the district court's application of a nine-level increase to defendant's offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2J1.6(b)(2)(A), because the underlying offense, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in respect to which he failed to appear carried a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. In prosecution for failure to appear in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3146(a)(1), the district court did not err in applying an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2J1.6(b)(2)(A) because defendant's underlying offense of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine was punishable by up to life imprisonment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1424 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Humberto Jacobo, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________ Submitted: September 18, 2012 Filed: November 30, 2012 Before RILEY, Chief Judge, SMITH and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. Humberto Jacobo pleaded guilty to failure to appear at a change of plea hearing in a drug trafficking case, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1). In calculating the advisory sentencing guideline range, the district court1 applied a nine-level increase 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. to Jacobo s offense level, pursuant to USSG § 2J1.6(b)(2)(A), because the underlying offense in respect to which Jacobo failed to appear carried a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. Jacobo appeals his sentence, and we affirm. In April 2004, a grand jury charged Jacobo with conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). Jacobo failed to appear at a change of plea hearing on July 12, 2005. As a result, a grand jury returned another indictment in October 2009, charging Jacobo with failure to appear. Authorities arrested Jacobo in June 2011, and in October 2011, he pleaded guilty to failure to appear. During the pendency of the failure-to-appear case, in January 2010, the district court granted the government s motion to dismiss the April 2004 indictment against Jacobo without prejudice, and he was never convicted of the underlying drug trafficking offense. In determining the advisory guideline sentencing range for the offense of failure to appear, the district court applied a base offense level of six, USSG § 2J1.6(a)(2), a nine-level increase because the underlying offense was punishable by death or imprisonment for a term of fifteen years or more, id. § 2J1.6(b)(2)(A), and a twolevel reduction for acceptance of responsibility, id. § 3E1.1(a), resulting in a total offense level of 13 and a guideline range of 15-21 months imprisonment. The court then imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment. Jacobo argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in applying the nine-level increase under § 2J1.6(b)(2)(A), because the government failed to prove with reliable evidence that Jacobo actually committed the underlying offense of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. There is no requirement, however, that the prosecution prove the underlying offense, so there was no plain error. The underlying offense is the offense in respect to which the defendant failed to appear. USSG § 2J1.6, comment. (n.1). If that offense is punishable by imprisonment for a term of fifteen years or more, then the guidelines direct the court -2- to apply a nine-level increase. Unlike other guidelines cited by Jacobo that depend on whether a defendant committed another offense, e.g., United States v. Raglin, 500 F.3d 675, 677 (8th Cir. 2007) (discussing USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)), the focus of § 2J1.6(b)(2) is on the punishment authorized for the offense with which the defendant had been charged when he failed to appear. There is a direct relationship between the length of the potential sentence which one who fails to appear attempts to evade and the seriousness of the evasion. United States v. Agbai, 930 F.2d 1447, 1450 (10th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). The issue is not whether the defendant actually committed the underlying offense. See United States v. Nelson, 919 F.2d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding application of § 2J1.6(b) in a sentencing for failure to appear, even though the defendant had been acquitted of the underlying offense after his failure to appear); Agbai, 930 F.2d at 1449-50 (agreeing with Nelson). Because Jacobo s underlying offense of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine was punishable by up to life imprisonment, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), the district court correctly applied the nine-level increase. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
