Filed: Aug. 02, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 2, 2007 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 06-2304 JOSE GARCIA-CARDENAS, (CR-04-2400 LH) (D.N.M.) Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. A jury found Defendant guilty of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetami
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 2, 2007 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 06-2304 JOSE GARCIA-CARDENAS, (CR-04-2400 LH) (D.N.M.) Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. A jury found Defendant guilty of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamin..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 2, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 06-2304
JOSE GARCIA-CARDENAS, (CR-04-2400 LH)
(D.N.M.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
A jury found Defendant guilty of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or
more of a substance containing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
and conspiracy to commit the same in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court
sentenced Defendant to 235 months in prison. Defendant argues on appeal he should be
resentenced because the district court (1) erred in denying his request for a mitigating role
adjustment; and (2) improperly considered his alien status when calculating his sentence.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and affirm.
I.
The relevant historical facts presented at trial established that after observing
several traffic violations, New Mexico State Police Officer Arcenio Chavez stopped a
vehicle driven by Roberto Baez-Chavez. Defendant was a passenger in the vehicle. A
consensual search of the vehicle uncovered approximately twenty packages of
methamphetamine inside the vehicle’s spare tire. Officer Chavez arrested both Defendant
and Baez-Chavez. At the time of the arrest, Defendant and Baez-Chavez were each
carrying a cell phone. Defendant was also carrying a piece of paper showing what
appeared to be payments he received for transporting narcotics, a document listing his
address in Huntington Park, California, and a receipt for a stay in a motel in Albuquerque,
New Mexico on September 26, 2004. During a post-arrest interview, Defendant admitted
he expected payment for transporting the methamphetamine from Los Angeles, California
to Albuquerque.
As part of the investigation, the state police reviewed the call logs on Defendant
and Baez-Chavez’s cell phones and discovered each received several calls from an
individual in Albuquerque named Juan Segura. During a search of Segura’s property, the
state police found a Ford Explorer with a hidden compartment used for transporting
narcotics. The certificate of title for the Explorer showed the owner resided at the address
Defendant used in Huntington Park. The police also determined the owner of the vehicle
Baez-Chavez was driving at the time of Defendant’s arrest resided at Defendant’s
2
Huntington Park address. A search of Segura’s phone records revealed thirteen phone
calls between Segura and Defendant from September 22, 2004 to October 1, 2004. Ten
calls occurred between Segura and Baez-Chavez from November 6, 2004 to November
10, 2004, the day Defendant was arrested. The state police also inspected the
Albuquerque motel records in which Defendant previously stayed. The records showed
Defendant stayed in the Albuquerque motel on August 16, 2004, August 20, 2004, and
from September 26, 2004 to September 28, 2004.
After the jury convicted Defendant but prior to sentencing, Defendant requested a
mitigating role adjustment, arguing he was a “mere mule” who was to be paid a minimal
amount of money for transporting the methamphetamine. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The
Government opposed Defendant’s request arguing the evidence presented at trial showed
Defendant was more than a one-time courier in what was a large distribution ring. The
district court agreed with the Government and denied Defendant’s request. The court
sentenced Defendant to 235 months in prison. This appeal followed.
II.
Defendant first argues the district court erred by refusing to grant him a mitigating
role adjustment to his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. According to Defendant,
an adjustment is proper because he was a minor or minimal participant in the criminal
offense. We review a “sentencing court’s refusal to award a defendant a minor or
minimal participant status for clear error because it is a finding of fact.” United States v.
Virgen-Chavarin, 350 F.3d 1122, 1131 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). In
3
doing so, we “give due deference to the court’s application of the sentencing guidelines to
the facts.” Id.
Section 3B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a four level reduction to a
defendant’s offense level ‘[i]f the defendant was a minimal participant” in the criminal
offense, a two level reduction “[i]f the defendant was a minor participant,” or a three level
reduction if defendant’s role in the criminal offense falls between “minor” and
“minimal.” A reduction is proper only for “a defendant who plays a part in committing
the offense that makes him substantially less culpable than the average participant.”
United States v. Salazar-Samaniega,
361 F.3d 1271, 1277 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal
quotations omitted). The inquiry focuses on “the defendant’s knowledge or lack thereof
concerning the scope and structure of the enterprise and of the activities of others
involved in the offense.”
Id. Defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance
of the evidence his minor or minimal role in the criminal offense. See
Virgen-Chavarin,
350 F.3d at 1131.
Based on the record before us, we agree with the district court. Defendant’s role in
the criminal offense was neither minor, minimal, or anywhere in between. Defendant’s
involvement in the ongoing methamphetamine distribution ring prior to his arrest was
significant. The record supports the conclusion Defendant transported methamphetamine
to Albuquerque on multiple occasions, not just on the day he was arrested. The phone
records and motel records showed Defendant had been in Albuquerque twice in August
2004 and once in September 2004. Additionally, Defendant admitted being in
4
Albuquerque in July 2004. The vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger when he was
arrested, and the vehicle at Segura’s property were both owned by individuals whose
address was the same address Defendant used in Huntington Park, California. And, both
vehicles were used for transporting narcotics. Furthermore, according to a DEA agent
who testified at the suppression hearing, the paper in Defendant’s possession listing
varying amounts of money was consistent with the records drug couriers maintain of
money owed for transporting narcotics. Based on this evidence, the court did not clearly
err in denying Defendant’s request for a mitigating role adjustment.
Defendant also argues the court erred by considering the danger of
methamphetamine as well as the quantity Defendant transported in denying the
adjustment. In support of his argument, Defendant cites to the following comment the
court made during the sentencing hearing:
This involved conviction of a great deal of methamphetamine.
Methamphetamine has become one of the most poisonous of substances that
is commonly used in this country and has caused many, many deaths, and
people to become incompetent as a result of its use and is a very dangerous,
dangerous, drug. I think any involvement in the transportation and
distribution of something more than 15 pounds of this dangerous poison
requires strict response.
The court correctly took into account the quantity and nature of the drug
Defendant transported in calculating Defendant’s offense level. See U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(c)(1). But, if the court again considered the quantity and nature of the drug when
ruling on Defendant’s motion for the minor participant adjustment, that might give us
concern. As we have noted, “taking the quantity into account once again in deciding
5
upon the applicability of adjustments for minimal or minor participant risks imposing
double punishment.” United States v. Caruth, 930 F.2d 811, 816 (10th Cir. 1991). After
reviewing the record, however, we are satisfied the court did not rely on the quantity and
nature of the drug in denying Defendant’s request for a mitigating role adjustment. The
sentencing transcript clearly shows the district judge ruled on Defendant’s motion for
minimal role adjustment before he made his statements concerning the dangers of
methamphetamine. Prior to discussing the dangerous nature and quantity of the
methamphetamine, the court stated: “Well, I heard the testimony. I was impressed with
the complicity of the defendant in a number of similar transactions, and that he was
certainly complicit in this very serious crime. I am not inclined to reduce the guideline
range for him.” Only after the court made this ruling did it address the danger and
quantity of methamphetamine.
III.
Defendant further argues the sentencing court violated his right to due process
when it considered his status as an illegal alien in calculating his prison sentence. After
sentencing Defendant, the court made the following remark:
I will comment further with respect to the defendant’s conduct here, it’s one
thing to have an illegal alien come to the United States to take advantage of
our freedoms and laws here to make an honest living. But for an illegal to
come up here and try to make a living by transporting such a dangerous
poison is quite different, and I think it needs to be treated as such.
According to Defendant, the court’s remark illustrates that Defendant’s alien status
factored into the sentencing determination. We review de novo a constitutional challenge
6
to a sentence. See United States v. Tucker, 451 F.3d 1176, 1180 (10th Cir. 2006).
Sentencing a defendant more harshly because of his alien status violates the
defendant’s constitutional right to due process. See United States v. Onwuemene, 933
F.2d 650, 651 (8th Cir. 1991); United States v. Borrero-Isaza,
887 F.2d 1349, 1352 (9th
Cir. 1989); United States v. Gomez,
797 F.2d 417, 419 (7th Cir. 1986). Additionally, the
Sentencing Guidelines unequivocally state that national origin is “not relevant in the
determination of a sentence.” U.S.S.G. § 5H1.10. When considering the court’s remark
in context, however, it is readily apparent the court did not focus on Defendant’s alien
status, but rather on Defendant’s conduct of entering the United States illegally.
Entering the United States illegally is a federal crime. See 8 U.S.C. § 1325. A
sentencing court is at liberty to consider such prior criminal conduct when sentencing a
defendant for a different and unrelated crime. See 18 U.S. C. § 3553(a)(1) (permitting a
court to consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant”); U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(2)(E) (permitting a court to
consider “similar prior adult criminal conduct not resulting in conviction”). The act of
illegally entering the United States “is no different than any other recent prior illegal act
of any defendant being sentenced for any offense. . . . [T]he illegal act of an alien is
entitled to no more deference than some other prior illegal act of a citizen also being
7
sentenced for a drug violation.” Gomez, 797 F.2d at 420. The court did not violate
Defendant’s due process rights.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
8
