United States v. Jose Murillo

497 F. App'x 675
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 29, 2013
Docket12-2645
StatusUnpublished

This text of 497 F. App'x 675 (United States v. Jose Murillo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Jose Murillo, 497 F. App'x 675 (8th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jose Murillo appeals from the sentence of 235 months’ imprisonment that the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A).

Mr. Murillo maintains that the district court incorrectly enhanced his sentence for being a manager of an enterprise that involved five participants. See U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b). But, first of all, the record contains more than sufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Murillo was involved in an enterprise that involved himself, suppliers, an assistant, and at least one other person to whom he repeatedly sold distribution amounts. And the record also supports a finding that Mr. Murillo was a manager because he controlled his assistant, determined his assistant’s compensation, and kept far more of the proceeds of sales in which his assistant participated than his assistant did. See United States v. Payton, 636 F.3d 1027, 1048-49 (8th Cir.2011), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 349, 181 L.Ed.2d 220 (2011); United States v. Cole, 657 F.3d 685, 686-88 (8th Cir.2011) (per curiam); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 comment, (n. 4).

Mr. Murillo also asserts that his sentence is unreasonable. But the district court’s sentence was at the very low end of *676 the applicable guideline range, and during sentencing the district court adverted to the considerations in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that guide the determination of an appropriate sentence. The court also heard argument and was familiar with the defendant’s sentencing memorandum, the PSR, and letters that Mr. Murillo had submitted. We see no abuse of discretion here, and note that it will be a very unusual case indeed where we would discern such an abuse when the sentence imposed is within the applicable guideline range. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc).

Affirmed.

1

. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Payton
636 F.3d 1027 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Cole
657 F.3d 685 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Feemster
572 F.3d 455 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
497 F. App'x 675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-murillo-ca8-2013.