United States v. Moreno-Martinez

Case: 24-40645 Document: 57-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2025

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________ United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 24-40645

FILED

July 9, 2025

Summary Calendar

____________ Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Juan Manuel Moreno-Martinez,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-2337-1

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Juan Manuel Moreno-Martinez challenges his within-Guidelines 333-

months’ sentence, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

conspiracy to kidnap two victims, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(c). He

contends the district court miscalculated his advisory Sentencing Guidelines

range by erroneously applying the following enhancements under Guideline

_____________________

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-40645 Document: 57-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2025

No. 24-40645

§ 2A4.1(b): six-level increase for a ransom demand ((1)); two-level increase

for serious bodily injury ((2)(B)); two-level increase for use of a dangerous

weapon ((3)); and one-level increase for keeping a victim more than seven

days ((4)(B)).

Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, the district

court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating

the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51

(2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to

an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an

abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-Martinez,

564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in

district court, 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).

Moreno contends that Guidelines § 2A4.1(b)(1) (ransom demand),

(b)(2)(B) (serious bodily injury), and (b)(4)(B) (keeping victim more than

seven days) do not apply because he is not accountable for the third-party

conduct on which the enhancements are based. Determinations of what

constitutes relevant conduct are factual findings reviewed for clear error.

United States v. Barfield, 941 F.3d 757, 761 (5th Cir. 2019). “Under the

clearly erroneous standard, we will uphold a finding so long as it is plausible

in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Ramos-Delgado, 763 F.3d

398, 400 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

To the extent Moreno maintains he was unaware of the larger

conspiracy to demand ransom money, the record contradicts him. At

rearraignment, he admitted he was aware that the purpose of transporting the

victims to Mexico was “to obtain from them some sort of payment or

compensation”. The record also shows that he threatened to kill the victims

2

Case: 24-40645 Document: 57-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/09/2025

No. 24-40645

and was involved in their being held at gunpoint at his ranch. Moreno does

not explain why, on this record, it is not plausible to conclude that the

conduct at issue was within the scope of, in furtherance of, and reasonably

foreseeable in connection with the criminal activity that he and others jointly

agreed to undertake. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (defining “relevant

conduct”). He accordingly fails to show that the district court clearly erred

in finding the acts of his co-conspirators constituted relevant conduct in

applying the disputed enhancements. See Ramos-Delgado, 763 F.3d at 400.

Alternatively, Moreno challenges the application of the serious

bodily-injury enhancement under Guideline § 2A4.1(b)(2)(B), contending

the record does not sufficiently establish the severity of a victim’s injuries.

The Guidelines define “serious bodily injury” to include injury requiring

medical intervention or involving either “extreme physical pain” or the

protracted impairment of a bodily or mental function. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, cmt.

n.1(M).

The presentence investigation report (PSR), relied on by the district

court, provides that a co-conspirator beat one of the victims with “a 2x4

wooden stick” causing “significant bruising to his back, right arm, right leg

and buttock area as well as swelling to his right arm and hand”. Although the

PSR does not explicitly state that the victim was in “extreme physical pain”,

the district court was, of course, “permitted to draw reasonable inferences

from the facts”. Ramos-Delgado, 763 F.3d at 400 (citation omitted); see

United States v. Garza-Robles, 627 F.3d 161, 169–70 (5th Cir. 2010) (plausible

to infer “extreme pain”, i.e., serious bodily injury, where victim had “broken

rib, bruised buttocks, and cuts behind the ears”). In short, it is plausible to

infer that the injuries in question qualified as serious bodily injuries.

Finally, Moreno challenges the dangerous-weapon enhancement

under Guideline § 2A4.1(b)(3) on the ground that there is no evidence he

3

Case: 24-40645 Document: 57-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/09/2025

No. 24-40645

personally used a firearm. This contention fails because, even if Moreno did

not personally threaten the victims with a firearm, at least one of his

co-conspirators did in a manner warranting the enhancement, and Moreno

does not dispute that he is accountable for that conduct. See United States v.

Dunigan, 555 F.3d 501, 505 (5th Cir. 2009) (pointing weapon at specific

individuals qualifies as “otherwise used” under Sentencing Guideline

§ 2A4.1 cmt. n.2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).

AFFIRMED.

4