US v. Luis Renteria

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:12-cr-00037-FA-10. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999988395]. [16-4021]

Appeal: 16-4021

Doc: 48

Filed: 12/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS RENTERIA,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
David A. Faber,
Senior District Judge. (7:12-cr-00037-FA-10)

Submitted:

December 12, 2016

Decided:

December 16, 2016

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jenna T. Blue, BLUE LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L.
Fritz,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4021

Doc: 48

Filed: 12/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Luis Renteria pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and
to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012).
applied

the

cross-reference

for

first

The district court

degree

murder,

U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2D1.1(d)(1), 2A1.1 (2014), and
sentenced
claiming

Renteria
that

the

cross-reference.
When
district

to

life

district

in

prison.

court

erred

Renteria
when

it

appeals,

applied

the

review

the

We affirm.

evaluating
court’s

Guidelines

legal

conclusions

findings for clear error.
308 (4th Cir. 2014).

calculations,
de

novo

we
and

its

factual

United States v. Cox, 744 F.3d 305,

The Guidelines provide, “[i]f a victim was

killed under circumstances that would constitute murder under 18
U.S.C.

§ 1111

had

such

killing

taken

place

within

the

territorial or maritime jurisdiction of the United States, [a
sentencing court should] apply § 2A1.1 (First Degree Murder). .
. .”

USSG § 2D1.1(d)(1).

First degree murder includes both

premeditated and felony murder.

USSG § 2A1.1, cmt. n.2. The

Government

supporting

must

cross-reference

prove
by

a

the

facts

preponderance

of

the

application
evidence.

of

a

United

States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 177, 182 (4th Cir. 2012).
When

attributing

the

actions

of

co-conspirators

for

sentencing purposes, the Guidelines provide for consideration,
2

Appeal: 16-4021

Doc: 48

Filed: 12/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

“in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity . . . ,
[of] all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in
furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, that
occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction [or]
in preparation for that offense.” USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).

“In

order

the

to

determine

the

defendant’s

accountability

for

conduct of others under subsection (a)(1)(B), the court must
first

determine

the

scope

of

the

criminal

activity

particular defendant agreed to jointly undertake.”

the

Id. cmt.

(n.2).
We hold that the district court did not err in applying the
cross-reference.

Evidence presented to the court disclosed that

Renteria was angry that Geniro Jamis had stolen $150,000 in drug
proceeds from him and that Renteria paid co-conspirators $15,000
to kidnap, torture, and murder Jamis.
We

therefore

affirm.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3