United States v. Jorge Gonzalez, No. 19-1035 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not commit a clear error in judgment in deciding to give little or no weight to defendant's explanation for his conduct, and the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1035 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jorge Armando Gonzalez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: November 11, 2019 Filed: February 28, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jorge Armando Gonzalez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. At sentencing, the district court1 determined that Gonzalez’s total offense level was 33, that his criminal history category was IV, and that his sentencing range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines was 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. The district court varied downward and sentenced Gonzalez to 168 months’ imprisonment. Gonzalez appeals, arguing that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Gonzalez contends that the district court gave insufficient weight to the nature and circumstances of the offense. According to Gonzalez, a friend had given him money for living expenses after the tragic death of Gonzalez’s two-year-old daughter in 2014 and later called on Gonzalez to repay the debt by transporting 4.1 kilograms of methamphetamine into Minnesota in 2017. The district court adopted the government’s view of the case, however, and found that Gonzalez was a sophisticated and experienced drug trafficker, “no matter how much [he] minimize[d]” his conduct. The record supports the district court’s finding. Gonzalez had been convicted of methamphetamine distribution in 2006 and investigated for further distribution in 2009 and 2010. Gonzalez’s cell phone contained photos of firearms and vacuumwrapped bricks of unknown substances, as well as text messages directing an unknown individual to deposit $81,000 into certain bank accounts. We conclude that the district court thus did not commit a clear error in judgment in deciding to accord little or no weight to Gonzalez’s explanation for his conduct. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that a district court abuses its discretion when it considers only appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors). The sentence is not substantively unreasonable. The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
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.
