U.S. v. Sauseda
Decision Date | 04 February 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 08-51219.,08-51219. |
Citation | 596 F.3d 279 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frankie A. SAUSEDA, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Elizabeth Berenguer, Asst. U.S. Attys., San Antonio, TX, for U.S.
Steven Gregory White (Court-Appointed), Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, P.L.L.C., Waco, TX, for Sauseda.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before KING, BARKSDALE and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Frankie A. Sauseda challenges only his sentence, contending the district court erred by applying the two-level enhancement under Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(10)(A)(i) ( ). CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
On 23 June 2008, McGregor, Texas, Police Department Officers arrived at Sauseda's residence to execute a warrant. When the door was opened, the Officers noticed a strong chemical odor. Sauseda and three others were ordered to exit the residence.
Officers from the McLennan County Sheriff's Office then opened doors and windows in the residence to allow for cross-ventilation. Due to the overwhelming chemical odor, the Officers wore suits fitted with a self-contained breathing apparatus. They searched the residence and discovered pseudoephedrine pills, acetone, Epsom salt, camp fuel, brake fluid, methoil, drain cleaner, a hydrochloric acid (HCL) generator, scales, and other items used to produce methamphetamine.
Sauseda pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting both attempting to manufacture methamphetamine and possessing a chemical to manufacture it. See 18 U.S.C. § 2 (accomplice liability); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 ( ), 846 (attempt).
The presentence investigation report (PSR) assessed a base offense level of 32. It recommended increasing it by two levels pursuant to Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(10)(A)(i) on the basis that the offense involved the unlawful discharge, emission, or release of a hazardous substance. In support, the PSR cited the strong odor emanating from the residence.
At sentencing, Sauseda objected to the enhancement. In response, the Government presented the testimony of Investigator Lippe of the McLennan County Sheriff's Office, who testified about the strong odor emanating from the residence. He also testified: the HCL generator found in Sauseda's bedroom was leaking hydrochloric gas; and, by a nearby bridge, Officers found trash bags filled with materials used to manufacture methamphetamine. The district court impliedly overruled Sauseda's objection and sentenced him to, inter alia, concurrent 168-month and 120-month terms of imprisonment.
Although post-Booker (2005), the Guidelines are advisory only, and an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the guideline-sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In that respect, its application of the guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005).
Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(10)(A) (toxic-emission enhancement) states: the base-offense level should be increased by two levels "[i]f the offense involved (i) an unlawful discharge, emission, or release into the environment of a hazardous or toxic substance; or (ii) the unlawful transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste". Application note 19 to § 2D1.1 provides that subpart (b)(10)(A) applies
if the conduct for which the defendant is accountable under § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) involved any discharge, emission, release, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal violation covered by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA], 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d); the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [CERCLA], 42 U.S.C. § 9603(b); or 49 U.S.C. § 5124 ( ).
Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(10)(A) cmt. n. 19.
Sauseda claims: for application of the toxic-emission enhancement, the Government was required to prove he violated one of the listed statutes, but instead only presented evidence that the Officers who entered the residence were overcome by a strong odor; and evidence of pungent fumes alone does not establish that he unlawfully released a toxic substance.
Although several of our court's unpublished opinions have touched on this question, our court has never held in a published opinion what must be proven to support a toxic-emission enhancement. In any event, although our unpublished opinions are not entirely consistent, they hold, for the most part, that the enhancement is not applicable unless the Government proves violation of one of the listed statutes in application note 19. E.g., United States v. Strackbein, 344 Fed.Appx. 994, 995, 2009 WL 3092484, at *1 (5th Cir.2009) ( ); United States v. Harris, 193 Fed.Appx. 333, 335 (5th Cir.2006) ( ); United States v. Prejean, 172 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (5th Cir.2006) ( ); United States v. Royall, 71 Fed.Appx. 442, 442 (5th Cir.2003) ( ); United States v. Stepan, 66 Fed.Appx. 524 (5th Cir.2003) ( ).
These unpublished decisions, of course, are not binding on our court; they are, however, persuasive. 5TH CIR. R. 47.5; see also Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 884, 887-88 (5th Cir.2007). Other persuasive authority is found in published opinions by the Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits; they require proof of violation of one of the listed statutes in application note 19.
In United States v. Kinard, 472 F.3d 1294, 1296-98 (11th Cir.2006), defendant maintained the toxic-emission enhancement was improper because the Government failed to present any evidence that defendant "unlawfully" released anhydrous ammonia. Id. at 1296. Accordingly, the court reviewed the evidence the Government presented at sentencing: testimony by an Officer certified to train personnel in cleaning methamphetamine labs. Id. at 1296-97.
The testifying Officer had not visited defendant's lab, but had reviewed reports and photographs, and was unfamiliar with the disposal requirements for anhydrous ammonia. Id. at 1297. The Eleventh Circuit held this evidence did not establish violation of a listed statute in application note 19. Id. at 1297-98.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- U.S. v. Jones, 08-30725.
-
Newman v. Plains All Am. Pipeline, L.P.
...offer letter.10 "[U]npublished decisions, of course, are not binding on our court; they are, however, persuasive." United States v. Sauseda , 596 F.3d 279, 282 (5th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Thus, while the majority is not technically bound by Trujillo , it must not refuse to apply it......
-
Yang v. Holder
...these cases are not binding authority in this circuit and are inconsistent with this court's precedent. See United States v. Sauseda, 596 F.3d 279, 282 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that other circuits' decisions are persuasive only); Cabral v. Holder, 632 F.3d 886, 891-92 (5th Cir. 2011) (holdi......
-
United States v. Horta-Figueroa
...and that movant must be found to have violated one of those laws for the enhancement to apply. Movant also refers to United States v. Sauseda, 596 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2010), which held that in order for the toxic emission part of subsection (b)(10)(A) toapply, the government must prove by a ......