Gilbert Gomez, Jr. appealed his sentences following a 2024 conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, as well as sentences imposed after the revocation of his supervised release for prior 2011 and 2021 convictions. The core dispute centered on the district court's drug quantity finding for the 2024 offense, which was based on admissions made by his codefendant, Jeromie Lynn Patterson. Gomez argued that because Patterson was his employee and made self-serving statements, the court erred in relying on them. Additionally, Gomez challenged the consecutive nature of his supervised release revocation sentences and alleged that the district court violated the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Esteras by relying on impermissible retributive factors.
The Fifth Circuit, in a Per Curiam opinion, addressed three primary issues. First, regarding the drug quantity finding, the court noted that the probation officer conservatively attributed only a pro-rated portion of the drugs to Gomez, even though Patterson admitted to distributing far more. The court held that Patterson's statements were not accurately viewed as self-serving given the employment relationship and corroborated evidence. Furthermore, the court cited Salazar v. Lubbock Cnty. Hosp. Dist. to establish that self-serving statements are not inherently unworthy of consideration. Since Gomez failed to submit evidence to rebut the presentence report, the finding was not clearly erroneous. Second, the court addressed the two-level adjustments for importation and aggravating role. It found that Patterson's statements were relevant and corroborated by evidence of Gomez's direct ties to a Mexican cartel, his recruitment of Patterson, and his role in organizing the conspiracy. Third, regarding the supervised release revocations, the court found the consecutive sentences reasonable under Sentencing Commission policy statements. On the Esteras claim, the court noted that Gomez failed to preserve the issue, triggering plain error review. The court emphasized that Gomez admitted the district court never invoked the specific § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors forbidden by Esteras. The court rejected the argument that the judge's silence implied reliance on retributive factors, stating that mere silence is insufficient to assume improper basis. Finally, the court dismissed Gomez's constitutional due process and cruel and unusual punishment claims as vague, conclusory, and unpreserved.
The decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit's standard that self-serving statements can support sentencing determinations if corroborated by other evidence, even when the source is a codefendant. It clarifies that a district court's silence during sentencing does not constitute an implicit reliance on the retributive factors prohibited by Esteras. The ruling leaves the defendant's sentences intact and provides no new remand instructions, effectively closing the door on these specific challenges to drug quantity calculations and supervised release revocation reasoning in the Fifth Circuit.