United States v. Cartagena, No. 16-3356 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence of 156 months in prison after pleading guilty to a drug-related offense. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that, although the district court did not expressly refer to the factors set forth in the commentary to USSG 3B1.2, defendant has not shown that he would have received a minimal role adjustment, much less that he would have received a lesser sentence, had the district court not procedurally erred; merely showing that defendant was less culpable than other participants was not enough to entitle him to the adjustment if defendant was deeply involved in the offense; although defendant's sentence was 36 months above the mandatory minimum sentence, the district court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence; and defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Riley and Beam, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - sentence. District court did not plainly err in denying a minimal role adjustment, even though the district court did not expressly refer to the factors set forth in commentary to U.S.S.G sec. 3B1.2, as Cartegena did not show a reasonable probability that he would have received a minimal role adjustment or a lesser sentence; merely showing less culpability does not entitled defendant to adjustment. District court did not abused its discretion in sentence of 36 months above the mandatory minimum after it considered the section 3553(a) factors; sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
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.