United States v. Burton

In United States v. Burton, No. 23-40460 (5th Cir. June 4, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions to deny the defendant a minor-role adjustment under USSG § 3B1.2 and to deny his request for a downward departure to a probationary sentence.

Issue 1: Did the district court err by denying Burton’s request for a minor-role adjustment? No.

The mitigating-role decision “is heavily dependent upon the facts of the particular case,” § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C), the defendant “has the burden of showing that he is entitled to the adjustment.” United States v. Angeles-Mendoza, 407 F.3d 742, 753 (5th Cir. 2005) (quotations and citations omitted). A defendant’s “essential or indispensable role … is not determinative,” and the essential question is whether the defendant was “substantially less culpable than the average participant in the criminal activity.” § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C).

Here, Burton failed to satisfy his burden. On appeal, he persisted in an argument that “his relative role … was quite debatable.” But the Fifth Circuit rejected his argument this way: “Given that Burton was the enterprise’s driver, testimony that Burton told at least one alien how and where to hide, and the presence of a gun and cash in his truck, we discern no error…”

Issue 2: Did the district court err by considering improper factors before denying Burton’s request for a downward departure? No.

Burton argued that the district court “inappropriately gave weight to his decision to go to trial rather than plead guilty, and … failed adequately to consider his mitigating characteristics.” The Fifth Circuit’s opinion left the first argument opaque, saying in a footnote that “Burton [did] not contend that the district court imposed a ‘trial penalty,’ sentencing him more harshly than it otherwise would have because he went to trial.” (emphasis in original).

In general, the Fifth Circuit reviews sentences under a “highly deferential” standard because the sentencing court is in a better position to find facts and judge their import under the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors with respect to a particular defendant.” United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It typically will not “reweigh the sentencing factors and substitute [its] judgment for that of the district court.” Id. at 167.

Here, the district court considered the case’s facts, arguments, allocution, and more. It also articulated its reasons for imposing a sentencing within the Guidelines range. So “[a]ll considered, Burton has not rebutted the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence is reasonable.”