United States v. Norberto Castillo-Lopez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: June 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-1500
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________

No. 24-1500 ____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

NORBERTO CASTILLO-LOPEZ, Appellant ____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00266-002) District Judge: Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan ____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 6, 2025

Before: HARDIMAN, BIBAS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: June 9, 2025) ____________

OPINION * ____________

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Norberto Castillo-Lopez appeals his judgment of sentence after a jury found him

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. guilty of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. We will

affirm.

I

Castillo-Lopez supplied cocaine to a co-conspirator in Ohio who redistributed it in

Pennsylvania. So he was indicted in the Western District of Pennsylvania for conspiring

to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine.

He was charged and later indicted for another drug-related offense in the Southern

District of Ohio. And following his arrest, Castillo-Lopez was indicted yet again in the

Middle District of Pennsylvania for illegally reentering the United States.

After the parties reached a plea agreement providing for the global resolution of

these charges, the District Court scheduled a change-of-plea hearing. But before the

hearing, Castillo-Lopez changed his mind and wanted to go to trial.

At a status conference, the prosecutor described the plea agreement. The District

Court remarked that Castillo-Lopez’s sentencing “exposure” across the three cases was

“significant” and said that the plea agreement “seems like a good deal.” App. 57–58.

During another status conference, the Court again said that the plea agreement was

“pretty favorable” after discussing Castillo-Lopez’s possible sentencing exposure. App.

70.

Castillo-Lopez proceeded to trial, and the jury found him guilty of the cocaine-

related offense. His Guidelines sentencing range was 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment.

At sentencing, the Court acknowledged the particular circumstances that influenced

Castillo-Lopez’s decision to go to trial. The Court explained that a downward variance,

2 “the equivalent of essentially a three point downward adjustment,” was appropriate to

reflect what Castillo-Lopez “would have received for acceptance of responsibility.” App.

130. The Court imposed a 135-month sentence, and Castillo-Lopez appealed.

II 1

Castillo-Lopez argues that the District Court plainly erred by participating in plea

discussions, thereby violating Rule 11(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

We need not decide whether the Court violated Rule 11(c)(1) because Castillo-Lopez has

not shown that his substantial rights were affected. See United States v. Dominguez

Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81 (2004).

Castillo-Lopez does not argue that he was prejudiced during his trial. Instead, he

claims that the District Court’s comments “create[d] the appearance of a premature

commitment to a sentence of at least a certain level of severity.” Castillo-Lopez Br. 38

(alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Crowell, 60 F.3d 199, 205 (5th Cir.

1995)). The record shows otherwise.

The Court’s explanation for its downward variance showed leniency, not

vindictiveness. And the fact that Castillo-Lopez was sentenced well below his Guidelines

sentencing range renders prejudice implausible. So Castillo-Lopez has not shown that

“the probability of a different result is sufficient to undermine confidence in the

outcome” of his sentencing. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83 (cleaned up).

We will therefore affirm the District Court’s judgment.

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). 3