United States v. Weylin O. Rodriguez, 11th Cir. (2015)
Case: 13-11426
Date Filed: 01/05/2015
Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11426
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cr-00136-MSS-AEP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WEYLIN O. RODRIGUEZ,
a.k.a. Rico,
a.k.a. Weylin Ollie Rodriguez,
a.k.a. David Johnson,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 5, 2015)
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-11426
Date Filed: 01/05/2015
Page: 2 of 4
Weylin O. Rodriguez was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to
commit sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a) and 1594; three counts
of sex trafficking a minor by force, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a), (b),
3559(e), and 2; one count of sex trafficking adults, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1591(a), (b), and 2; one count of using a firearm in furtherance of sex trafficking,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A) and 2, one count of transporting minors
for prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(a), 3559(e), and 2; one count of
enticing an adult to travel in interstate commerce for prostitution, in violation of 18
U.S.C. 2422(a) and 2; and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court
sentenced him to life imprisonment, plus a five-year mandatory consecutive prison
term for his conviction for using a firearm in furtherance of sex trafficking by
force.
Beginning in January of 2010, Rodriguez ran a prostitution ring that
recruited minors as young as 14 years old. He lured young girls to work for his
company, GMB Entertainment, under the guise of helping them attain a modeling
career. Rodriguez then physically, emotionally, and sexually abused the girls.
Throughout the course of administering his criminal enterprise, Rodriguez
regularly carried a firearm and often slept with a firearm under his pillow.
On appeal, Rodriguez raises the following issues:
2
Case: 13-11426
Date Filed: 01/05/2015
Page: 3 of 4
1. Did the district court improperly apply an enhancement to
Rodriguezs overall offense level for obstruction of justice,
pursuant to U.S.S.G. Section 3C1.1?
2. Is Rodriguezs life sentence a substantively unreasonable
sentence?
3. Is Rodriguezs sentence unfairly disparate to that received
by co-defendants Tatijuana Joye and Pria Gunn?
4. Did the district court abuse its discretion by refusing
Rodriguez the opportunity to cross examine witnesses on
prior convictions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence
609(a)(2), and did the exclusion of such evidence deprive
him of a fair trial?
5. Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting into
evidence, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b),
Rodriguezs prior conviction for the offense of indecent
liberties with a minor?
6. Was there sufficient evidence to prove that Rodriguez
possessed a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence,
specifically sex trafficking of minors B.W., and N.W. or by
force, fraud or coercion, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C.
Section 924(c) (Count Seven)?
7. Did the district court improperly apply a two-level
sentencing enhancement for undue influence, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. Section 2G1.3(b)(2)(B)?
8. Did Rodriguezs trial counsel provide ineffective assistance
by failing to offer mental health evidence in mitigation of
the life sentence sought by the United States; by failing to
advise him to apologize to the victims and the court, thereby
demonstrating that Rodriguez showed a lack of remorse,
regret, or desire to rehabilitate himself; and for advising him
not to make a statement in allocution to the district court?
Case: 13-11426
Date Filed: 01/05/2015
Page: 4 of 4
After review and oral argument, we conclude that all of these issues lack
merit, and thus affirm Rodriguezs convictions and sentences. In regard to
Rodriguezs 8th claim, involving purported ineffective assistance of counsel, we
note that the record is not sufficiently developed to entertain this issue on direct
appeal. We will not generally consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
raised on direct appeal where the district court did not entertain the claim nor
develop a factual record. United States v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The preferred means for deciding a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is through a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion
even if the record contains some indication of deficiencies in counsel's
performance. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.
