United States v. Jesus Godinez-Contreras

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: July 20, 2023
• Docket: 22-2667
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-2667 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jesus Godinez-Contreras

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________

Submitted: April 10, 2023 Filed: July 20, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Jesus Godinez-Contreras received a 168-month prison sentence after a jury found him guilty of participating in a drug conspiracy. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), 846. Although he argues that the sentence is too long, we affirm. First, the record supports the district court’s 1 denial of a minor-role reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) (granting a two-point reduction in the base offense level “[i]f the defendant was a minor participant in [the] criminal activity”); see also United States v. Campbell-Martin, 17 F.4th 807, 817 (8th Cir. 2021) (reviewing for clear error). His “deep[] involve[ment]” included storing drugs, initiating wire transfers, and driving a co-conspirator to and from drug transactions. Campbell- Martin, 17 F.4th at 817 (citation omitted); see United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 880–81 (8th Cir. 2013) (affirming a no-reduction finding, even though the defendant acted as “a courier in a single [drug] transaction”). It does not matter that others may have “had a little bit more involvement in the” conspiracy. United States v. Garcia, 946 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).

Second, the overall sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (permitting courts to “apply a presumption of reasonableness” to a within-Guidelines sentence (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007))). The district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Sherrod, 966 F.3d 748, 754–55 (8th Cir. 2020). There was no abuse of discretion, in other words, in giving Godinez-Contreras a longer sentence based on his extensive criminal history and less-than-sincere attempt at cooperation. See United States v. Becerra, 958 F.3d 725, 731–32 (8th Cir. 2020); see also United States v. Fry, 792 F.3d 884, 893 (8th Cir. 2015).

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. -2-