United States v. Christopher Texidor

Nos. 24-3314, 24-3315 (3d Cir. Jan. 8, 2026) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · January 8, 2026 · No. Nos. 24-3314 and 24-3315

Summary

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed Christopher Texidor’s convictions and aggregate 292-month sentence for drug trafficking, firearm, and wire fraud offenses. The court held that the district court did not improperly consider acquitted cocaine-related conduct, did not clearly err in applying a four-level leadership enhancement, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. The court declined to review the wire-fraud sentence under the concurrent sentence doctrine.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Writing for the Court
Chung, Circuit Judge; Porter, Circuit Judge; Freeman, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decision date
January 8, 2026
Docket number
Nos. 24-3314 and 24-3315
Procedural posture
Texidor appealed his convictions and sentences from two criminal cases, challenging the District Court's treatment of acquitted conduct in the Presentence Investigation Report, application of a four-level leadership enhancement, substantive reasonableness of his 292-month aggregate sentence for the drug and firearm offenses, and substantive reasonableness of his concurrent 240-month wire-fraud sentence.
Standard of review
The Court reviewed Guidelines interpretation de novo, application of the Guidelines to facts for abuse of discretion, factual findings for clear error, and procedural and substantive sentencing challenges for abuse of discretion. Because the organizer-or-leader enhancement involves a predominantly fact-driven test, the Court applied clear-error review to the District Court's determination.
Precedential value
Published and precedential
Parties
Christopher Texidor v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencing guidelinessentencingstatutory interpretationappellate procedurecriminal procedure

Practice areas

Federal criminal lawSentencingSentencing GuidelinesAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the District Court erred by refusing to strike cocaine-related references from the PSR or by considering acquitted cocaine conduct at sentencing after the 2024 addition of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(c).
  2. Whether the District Court clearly erred or abused its discretion by applying the four-level organizer-or-leader enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).
  3. Whether Texidor's aggregate 292-month sentence for the marijuana trafficking and firearm offenses was substantively unreasonable.
  4. Whether the Court should review Texidor's challenge to his concurrent 240-month wire-fraud sentence.

Holdings

  1. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(c) limits the use of acquitted conduct in calculating the Guidelines range but does not preclude a sentencing court from considering such conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4 when selecting an appropriate sentence within or outside the Guidelines range.
  2. The District Court did not clearly err in finding that Texidor was an organizer and leader of criminal activity involving five or more participants and therefore did not err in applying the four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).
  3. The 292-month aggregate sentence was substantively reasonable because it was within the properly calculated Guidelines range and was supported by the District Court's consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and the seriousness and circumstances of the criminal conduct.
  4. The Court exercised the concurrent sentence doctrine and declined to review the substantive-reasonableness challenge to Texidor's concurrent 240-month wire-fraud sentence.

Key quotations

As § 1B1.3(c)’s plain text does not limit the consideration of acquitted conduct in contexts other than calculating the Guidelines range, acquitted conduct may still be considered when determining the appropriate sentence, per 18 U.S.C. § 3661 and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4. (9)
In sum, it was not clear error for the District Court to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Texidor was an organizer and leader of a criminal activity involving five or more participants under § 3B1.1(a). (13)
Accordingly, we apply the concurrent sentence doctrine and decline to review Texidor’s substantive reasonableness challenge to his wire fraud sentence. (20)

Factual background

Texidor operated a marijuana-trafficking organization that transported nearly 3,000 kilograms of marijuana from California to Pennsylvania through the mail, using his business and residence to facilitate and conceal the operation. He recruited family members and others to receive shipments, coordinated drug sales and deliveries, and helped track stolen parcels and organize threats and drive-by shootings against a postal employee suspected of stealing shipments. Searches of locations associated with the organization recovered marijuana, firearms, GPS devices, packaging equipment, money, and mailing materials. While on pretrial release, Texidor also participated in a scheme to obtain fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program loans.

Procedural history

After a six-day jury trial, Texidor was convicted of multiple drug and firearm offenses but acquitted of a cocaine-conspiracy charge and one firearm charge. In a separate case, he pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud after the remaining charges were dismissed. The District Court considered the cases together for sentencing, imposed an aggregate 292-month sentence on the drug and firearm offenses and a concurrent 240-month sentence for wire fraud, and the Third Circuit affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…