Foreseeability Requirement for Firearm Enhancements under U.S.S.G. §2L1.1(b)(5)(C): United States v. Torrijos-Ruiz

Introduction

In United States v. Torrijos-Ruiz, 5th Cir. No. 24-50495 (May 13, 2025), the Fifth Circuit addressed multiple sentencing issues arising from Gustavo Torrijos-Ruiz’s guilty plea to conspiracy to transport illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) & (B)(i). Key questions included:

Whether the district court properly applied a two-level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5)(C) based on a co-conspirator’s gun possession;
Whether Torrijos-Ruiz was entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1;
How to resolve a conflict between the court’s oral pronouncement of supervised-release conditions and the written judgment;
And whether the written judgment contained a clerical error in listing the statute of conviction.

The Court affirmed in part, vacated the sentence as to the firearm enhancement, and remanded for further proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

Torrijos-Ruiz pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. During presentence proceedings, the Probation Office recommended:

A base offense level of 12 for conspiracy;
Enhancements of +3 for six or more aliens, +4 for an unaccompanied minor, and +2 under § 2L1.1(b)(5)(C) based on his co-conspirator’s firearm;
No two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

The district court adopted the report, overruled Torrijos-Ruiz’s objection to denial of acceptance, applied the firearm enhancement without making explicit foreseeability findings, and imposed a 48-month term. A supervised-release condition in the written judgment (requiring court permission to communicate with felons) conflicted with the oral pronouncement (requiring only probation-officer permission). Finally, the written judgment cited the generic § 1324 rather than the specific subsections.

On appeal the Fifth Circuit held:

The firearm enhancement under § 2L1.1(b)(5)(C) must be reversed because the court made no particularized findings that the co-conspirator’s gun was reasonably foreseeable to Torrijos-Ruiz;
The denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction was not “without foundation,” so it was affirmed;
The written judgment’s supervised-release condition was more burdensome than the oral pronouncement and must yield to the oral terms;
The reference to the generic § 1324 in the written judgment was a clerical error and should be corrected to reflect the actual subsections pleaded guilty to.

The Fifth Circuit vacated the sentence in part and remanded for resentencing, factual findings on the firearm issue, and reform of the written judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied on a line of Fifth Circuit decisions construing § 2L1.1(b)(5)(C) and § 1B1.3 (relevant conduct):

Beltran-Mondragon, 2024 WL 2861853 (5th Cir. 2024) – Held that foreseeability may be established by evidence of an ongoing armed operation and the defendant’s active role;
Stubblefield, 2023 WL 2366601 (5th Cir. 2023) – Emphasized adoption of PSR findings that support relevant conduct determinations;
Olivares, 833 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2016) – Reminded that the government bears the preponderance burden for sentencing enhancements.

On acceptance of responsibility, the court cited:

Diaz, 39 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 1994) – Guilty plea alone does not guarantee the reduction;
Dean, 521 F. App’x 332 (5th Cir. 2013) – Contrast between admission in factual basis and minimization at PSR interview;
Nevarez-Arreola, 885 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1989) – Failure to elaborate at PSR interview supports denial of the two-level reduction.

Legal Reasoning

1. Firearm Enhancement (§ 2L1.1(b)(5)(C))
Although Torrijos-Ruiz’s co-conspirator Cisneros possessed a firearm during the traffic stop, application of the +2 enhancement required three findings under § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B):
  (i) within the scope of the conspiracy;
  (ii) in furtherance of that conspiracy;
  (iii) reasonably foreseeable to Torrijos-Ruiz.
The district court made no finding on foreseeability. Under plain-error review, the Fifth Circuit reversed that portion of the sentence and held that the enhancement can only be reapplied if the court makes explicit, particularized findings on each element.

2. Acceptance of Responsibility (§ 3E1.1)
The Fifth Circuit gives “great deference” to a district court’s denial of the two-level reduction and will intervene only if the denial is “without foundation.” Here, the court reasonably found that Torrijos-Ruiz’s PSR interview statements (minimizing his guiding role) conflicted with his factual basis for plea. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, that inconsistency supported denial of the reduction.

3. Supervised-Release Condition Conflict
Discretionary conditions must match between oral pronouncement and written judgment. A mismatch that burdens the defendant more in the written document constitutes an abuse of discretion. The requirement to seek court permission (written) rather than probation-officer permission (oral) was more onerous, so the oral terms control.

4. Clerical Error in Statutory Reference
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 allows correction of clerical errors without proof of prejudice. The written judgment must be reformed to cite the specific subsections (8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) & (B)(i)) rather than the generic § 1324.

Impact

This decision clarifies and reinforces important sentencing practices:

Judges must articulate particularized findings—especially foreseeability—when imposing relevant-conduct enhancements based on co-conspirator firearm possession;
Defendants’ statements at presentence must align with plea admissions to secure acceptance-of-responsibility credit;
Sentencing courts must ensure written judgments track oral pronouncements to avoid more onerous post-sentencing burdens;
Clerical errors in judgments can and should be corrected under Rule 36 to prevent collateral consequences in Bureau of Prisons administration and supervised-release oversight.

Lower courts will refer to this precedent when fashioning detailed factual findings for firearm enhancements and when preparing the final judgment and commitment order.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Relevant Conduct (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3): Facts about co-conspirators’ actions may be attributed to a defendant only if they were within the scope, in furtherance of, and reasonably foreseeable as part of the conspiracy.
Plain-Error Review: When a defendant fails to object at trial, an appellate court corrects only “clear and obvious” errors that affect substantial rights and the fairness of judicial proceedings.
Acceptance of Responsibility Credit: A two-level guidelines reduction that rewards genuine remorse and full admission of conduct—denied if the defendant minimizes or contradicts plea admissions.
Discretionary Supervised-Release Conditions: Courts may impose special rules (e.g., no contact with known felons) but must ensure the formal judgment mirrors the terms announced at sentencing.
Clerical Error Correction (Rule 36): Minor mistakes in judgments—like statutory citations—can be fixed at any time without showing legal prejudice.

Conclusion

United States v. Torrijos-Ruiz establishes that firearm enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5)(C) require explicit judicial findings on foreseeability when based on a co-conspirator’s weapon. It reaffirms the deferential “without foundation” standard for acceptance-of-responsibility denials, and it highlights the importance of consistency between oral and written sentencing statements. Finally, the ruling underscores Rule 36’s role in maintaining accurate judgments. Together, these principles will guide district courts and practitioners in ensuring transparent, precise sentencing proceedings in alien-smuggling and related cases.