United States v. Pedro Arreola ( 2020 )

Case: 19-41007 Document: 00515527942 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 14, 2020
No. 19-41007
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Pedro Sebastian Arreola,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:19-CR-615-1
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Defendant-Appellant Pedro Arreola (“Arreola”) appeals the district
court’s denial of his request for a mitigating role adjustment pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
Arreola pleaded guilty to importing 35 kilograms of
methamphetamine into the U.S., 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), 960(b)(1).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should
not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in
5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-41007 Document: 00515527942 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2020
No. 19-41007
On the day of the offense, Arreola drove his brother Jose’s truck, with Jose
as a passenger, from Mexico to the Donna Texas Port of Entry. Customs and
Border Patrol Agents discovered methamphetamine in the vehicle. Within
the week prior to the offense, Jose communicated and met with several
individuals about his vehicle, presumably regarding the logistics of
transporting the drugs. One day prior to the offense, Arreola and Jose
travelled to and from the U.S. It is not clear whether this errand involved
drugs.
Arreola admitted to knowing that “some sort of drug” was in the
vehicle and that he intended to transport it into the U.S. He would be paid
$500, and Jose would receive $1,000, but the sum total would be deposited
into Arreola’s bank account. Arreola also later gave authorities the location
in Mexico of one of the individuals involved in the operation.
At sentencing, Arreola requested a minor role adjustment. The
district court declined finding that he was an average participant, and it
sentenced him to 168 months in custody with a three-year term of supervised
release.
Arreola argues on appeal that the district court clearly erred by
denying his request for a two-level reduction under § 3B1.2. He argues that
the PSR established the culpability of the other participants and that he was
substantially less culpable than them. Specifically, the other individuals
provided the instructions, instrumentalities, and the drugs. Conversely,
Arreola was recruited by Jose only to drive the vehicle transporting the drugs,
and Arreola did not communicate with the other parties. He claims to have
had no role in the decision making or planning, and he lacked any discretion
in the operation.
Whether a defendant is subject to a mitigating role adjustment under
§ 3B1.2 is a factual finding reviewed for clear error, and it is to be upheld if
2
Case: 19-41007 Document: 00515527942 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/14/2020
No. 19-41007
“plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Torres-
Hernandez, 843 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). When some of the factors in § 3B1.2 support the reduction,
but others do not, the district court does not clearly err in denying the
reduction. See United States v. Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d 260, 264-65 (5th Cir.
2017).
The district court’s ruling that Arreola was an average participant and
thus not entitled to a reduction is plausible in light of the record as a whole,
similar to the situation in Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d at 264-65, where the
balancing of the factors also presented a “mixed bag.” Weighing in favor of
the adjustment are the lack of evidence that Arreola knew the large quantity
of drugs that he would be transporting, that he participated in the planning
or organizing, or that he made decisions about the operation. Furthermore,
the degree to which he stood to benefit from the operation was low—his
compensation for transporting approximately two million dollars’ worth of
drugs was $500. Conversely, the evidence weighing against the adjustment
includes Arreola knowingly transporting the drugs into the U.S. with his
brother as a passenger, the use of his bank account to not only accept his
payment but also his brother’s payment, and his knowledge of the Mexican
address of one of the individuals involved. Because the factors support a
plausible judgment in either direction, the district court did not clearly err,
Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d at 264-65, and its judgment is AFFIRMED.
3