Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-06033/USCOURTS-ca10-94-06033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ibrahim Baez-Acuna
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Court or Apptl\11 

..,.,."''" rireu It 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

APR~··61995 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. No. 94-6033 

IBRAHIM BAEZ-ACUNA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No. CR-93-171-C) 

June E. Tyhurst, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellant. 

M. Jay Farber, Assistant United States Attorney, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellee. 

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, MOORE, and HENRY, Circuit Judges. 

SEYMOUR, Chief Judge. 

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 1 
On August 17, 1993, a federal grand jury indicted Ibrahim 

Baez-Acuna for drug and drug-related violations. Mr. Baez-Acuna 

subsequently filed a motion to suppress statements allegedly taken 

in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, which the district 

court denied. Mr. Baez-Acuna then entered a conditional plea of 

guilty to a superseding indictment which alleged multiple 

violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1), 846 and 18 U.S.C. 

1952(a) (3). During sentencing, the court enhanced Mr. BaezAcuna's base offense level by two points for his role in the 

offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). Mr. Baez-Acuna appeals, 

alleging Sixth Amendment and Sentencing Guideline violations. We 

affirm. 

I. 

In early 1992, Agent Matt Lotspeich, of the FBI's organized 

crime and drug squad, began investigating Mr. Baez-Acuna for 

participation in the cocaine conspiracy which is the subject of 

this federal prosecution. Officer Mark Wood, of the Oklahoma City 

Police Department, assisted Agent Lotspeich with his 

investigation. Unbeknownst to Agent Lotspeich or Officer Wood, an 

undercover Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agent, Frank Moreno, made 

a controlled buy from Mr. Baez-Acuna in September 1992. On 

February 27, 1993, the state filed charges against Mr. Baez-Acuna 

for this drug transaction, at which time a warrant was issued for 

-2-

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 2 
his arrest. The authorities did not arrest Mr. Baez-Acuna, 

however, until April 4. 

Through a series of informants, including Mr. Baez-Acuna's 

common-law wife, Debra Guerrero, Officer Wood and Agent Lotspeich 

learned of Mr. Baez-Acuna's arrest and incarceration, and they 

arranged to speak with him on April 6. Officer Wood, Ms. 

Guerrero, and other informants began their meeting before Agent 

Lotspeich arrived. Officer Wood read the Miranda warnings in 

English, and Mr. Baez-Acuna, who appeared to understand the 

content of the warnings, signed a waiver of his right to counsel. 

Before beginning the interview, Officer Wood asked Mr. Baez-Acuna 

whether he was represented by an attorney. Mr. Baez-Acuna 

responded that although he retained an attorney for an ongoing 

state prosecution, he had no attorney in the instant cas~. Sup. 

Hrg. Tr. at 65. Officer Wood then interviewed Mr. Baez-Acuna 

about his cocaine sources and the identities of his cohorts. 

Agent Lotspeich arrived approximately one hour after the 

interview began. Soon thereafter, a bilingual FBI agent arrived 

and read the Miranda warnings in Spanish, and Mr. Baez-Acuna 

executed another waiver. Mr. Baez-Acuna also told Agent Lotspeich 

that he did not have an attorney. Id. at 36. Before questioning 

Mr. Baez-Acuna, Agent Lotspeich emphasized that the interview 

would not concern the state charges for which he was in jail, but 

rather federal charges that would likely be filed at some late_ 

-3-

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 3 
date. Id. at 17. Mr. Baez-Acuna made incriminating statements 

during this interview. 

The authorities released Mr. Baez-Acuna following these 

interviews. Soon thereafter, DEA Agent Moreno contacted him and 

scheduled a formal interview on April 8. Before commencing the 

interview, Agent Moreno asked if Mr. Baez-Acuna was represented by 

an attorney, and he responded that he was not. Id. at 76. Agent 

Moreno then questioned him, ultimately arranging for Mr. BaezAcuna to become a DEA informant. 

In January 1993, before the state filed charges for the 1992 

controlled buy, the Oklahoma City police stopped Mr. Baez-Acuna 

for a routine traffic violation. During the course of the stop, 

the officers discovered cocaine. They arrested Mr. Baez-Acuna, 

and the Oklahoma City District Attorney's office filed charges in 

state court. Mr. Baez-Acuna retained an attorney, Don Easter, to 

represent him in this matter. He waived a preliminary hearing 

which was originally scheduled for mid-February 1993. Mr. Easter 

remains Mr. Baez-Acuna's lawyer for the 1993 traffic stop charges. 

Mr. Baez-Acuna did not retain an attorney for the 1992 

controlled buy charge until approximately April 20, 1993, almost 

two weeks after the April 6 and 8 interviews. At that time, he 

retained Mr. Easter, who was already representing him for the 1993 

traffic stop. Mr. Easter testified at the suppression hearing 

-4-

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 4 
that he had no knowledge of the 1992 controlled buy charges or the 

resulting April 1993 arrest at the time of the April 6 and 8 

interviews. Sup. Hrg. Tr. at 107. Mr. Baez-Acuna also testified 

that he did not contact Mr. Easter regarding the interviews until 

several weeks later. Id. at 147-48. 

In August 1993, a grand jury in the Western District of 

Oklahoma indicted Mr. Baez-Acuna for multiple drug and drug 

related violations. He filed a motion to suppress the statements 

made during the April 6 and 8 interviews on the grounds that he 

had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Relying on 

McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991), the district court found 

that Mr. Baez-Acuna had invoked his Sixth Amendment right to 

counsel, which is offense-specific, only as to the 1993 traffic 

stop charge. United States v. Baez-Acuna, No. CR-93-171-C, slip 

op. at 4 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 29, 1993). The court further found that 

the 1993 traffic stop was unrelated to the 1992 controlled buy or 

the ongoing FBI investigation. Id. The court concluded that Mr. 

Baez-Acuna's right-to-counsel waivers were valid and that the 

April 6 interview, which focused exclusively on the ongoing FBI 

investigation, did not violate the Sixth Amendment. It therefore 

denied the motion to suppress.1 The district court also addressed 

1 The district court did not explicitly address the April 8 

interview. Because Mr. Baez-Acuna moved to suppress statements 

from his April 8 interview with Mr. Moreno, as well as from the 

April 6 interview with Mr. Lotspeich and Mr. Wood, we consider 

both interviews on appeal. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 5 
sua sponte a Fifth Amendment argument that Mr. Baez-Acuna, because 

of his limited understanding of the English language, did not 

adequately understand the implications of the waivers. The court 

found, however, that Mr. Baez-Acuna's testimony regarding his 

limited understanding of the English language was not credible, 

concluding that his Fifth Amendment rights were therefore not 

violated. Mr. Baez-Acuna does not appeal the district court's 

holding as it relates to the Fifth Amendment. 

Mr. Baez-Acuna subsequently entered a conditional plea of 

guilty to one count of the superseding indictment, conspiracy to 

possess cocaine with intent to distribute. At the sentencing 

hearing, several witnesses described the roles that members of the 

drug conspiracy played. Following the testimony, the court held 

that Mr. Baez-Acuna was a manager of a criminal activity 

subjecting his base offense level to a two-point enhancement 

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) and sentenced Mr. Baez-Acuna to 

151 months imprisonment, 5 years supervised release, and a $50.00 

special assessment. 

Mr. Baez-Acuna appeals, arguing that the district court erred 

in denying the motion to suppress statements made in violation of 

his Sixth Amendment rights and by enhancing his base offense level 

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). 

-6-

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 6 
II. 

While the target of a federal investigation, Mr. Baez-Acuna 

was arrested on at least two separate occasions. The first, in 

January 1993, resulted from a traffic stop during which the 

authorities discovered cocaine. The second, on April 4, 1993, 

stemmed from Mr. Baez-Acuna's participation in a controlled drug 

buy in September 1992. Both arrests resulted in the filing of 

state charges. Although Mr. Baez-Acuna had retained Mr. Easter 

for matters relating to the 1993 traffic stop, he explicitly 

waived his right to counsel on April 6, answering Officer Wood's 

and Agent Lotspeich's questions regarding the federal 

investigation. He also told Agent Moreno on April 8 that he was 

not represented by counsel, and then answered questions. 

Mr. Baez-Acuna contends that the government violated his 

Sixth Amendment rights by interviewing him April 6 and 8 outside 

the presence of counsel when counsel had already been retained for 

the 1993 traffic stop charge. Similarly, Mr. Baez-Acuna argues 

that although he waived his right to counsel, the district court 

should have invalidated these waivers because his Sixth Amendment 

rights in the instant case had attached and had been invoked. 

When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress statements, we 

review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings under a 

clearly erroneous standard. See United States v. McAlpine, 919 

F.2d 1461, 1463 (lOth Cir. 1990). 

-7-

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 7 
The Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal 

prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the 

Assistance of Counsel for his defence." U.S. Const. amend. VI. 

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches "'at or after the 

initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings -- whether 

by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, 

information, or arraignment.'" United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 

180, 188 (1984) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 

(1972)). Once Sixth Amendment rights attach and the defendant 

properly invokes these rights by retaining or requesting counsel, 

subsequent waivers are deemed ineffective. Michigan v. Jackson, 

475 U.S. 625, 635-36 (1986). The Supreme Court recently 

circumscribed this framework by holding that Sixth Amendment 

rights are offense-specific. McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 

175 (1991). In other words, the Sixth Amendment "cannot be 

invoked once for all future prosecutions," and the Michigan v. 

Jackson effect of invalidating subsequent waivers only applies if 

the waiver pertains to the charge for which the defendant 

initially invoked the Sixth Amendment. Id. 

Mr. Baez-Acuna's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had 

attached with respect to the 1993 traffic stop charges and he had 

invoked the right by retaining Mr. Easter. Although the district 

court found that Mr. Baez-Acuna's Sixth Amendment rights had 

attached in the federal case upon institution of state proceedings 

for the 1992 controlled buy because both proceedings arose out of 

-8-

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 8 
the same set of circumstances, the court concluded that neither of 

these proceedings were related to the 1993 traffic stop. Because 

the district court found that Mr.Baez-Acuna had not invoked his 

right to counsel with respect to the controlled buy charges, the 

court held that the April 6 and 8 right-to-counsel waivers were 

valid under Michigan v. Jackson. On appeal, Mr. Baez-Acuna 

disputes these conclusions. 

We agree with the district court that Mr. Baez-Acuna's Sixth 

Amendment rights did not attach in this case by virtue of the 

institution of proceedings on the 1993 traffic stop. It is clear 

from the testimony at the suppression hearing that the federal 

charges were completely divorced from the 1993 traffic stop 

charge. Mr. Easter, Mr. Baez-Acuna's lawyer for the traffic stop 

charges, testified that the stop was not pretextual, but rather a 

"pure traffic stop," implicitly recognizing that the stop was not 

a calculated move in the ongoing drug conspiracy investigation. 

Sup. Hrg. Tr. at 103. The April 6 and 8 interviews, crucial 

precursors to the filing of this case, did not concern the 1993 

traffic stop. Officer Wood was not even aware of the traffic stop 

charges when he conducted his interview. Id. at 70. When asked 

whether the traffic stop had "anything whatsoever to do with your 

case," Agent Lotspeich responded, "Absolutely not." Id. at 14. 

Furthermore, Agent Lotspeich informed Mr. Baez-Acuna that the 

interview would not concern pending state charges but rather the 

ongoing FBI investigation. Id. at 17. Agent Moreno testified 

-9-

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 9 
that he and Mr. Baez-Acuna did not discuss the 1993 traffic stop 

during their April 8 interview. Id. at 79. Mr. Baez-Acuna 

presented no evidence during the suppression hearing to contradict 

this testimony. The district court's finding that the 1993 

traffic stop was a distinct, unrelated offense which could not 

have been the source of Sixth Amendment rights attaching in this 

case is not clearly erroneous. 

We also agree with the district court that at the time of the 

April 1993 interviews Mr. Baez-Acuna had not invoked his Sixth 

Amendment rights with respect to the 1992 controlled buy charges 

and the federal investigation. Some time in February 1993, Mr. 

Baez-Acuna retained Mr. Easter to represent him in the proceedings 

arising from the January 1993 traffic stop, thus invoking his 

Sixth Amendment rights as to that offense. Mr. Baez-Acuna did not 

invoke his Sixth Amendment rights regarding the 1992 controlled 

buy, the reason for his April arrest and detention, until well 

after the April 6 and 8 interviews. Agent Lotspeich, Officer 

Wood, and Agent Moreno testified that, prior to commencing the 

interview, they asked Mr. Baez-Acuna whether he was represented by 

counsel. He answered negatively to all three. Mr. Easter 

testified that, on the dates in question, he had no knowledge of 

the 1992 controlled buy charges or the ensuing arrest. Mr. Easter 

further testified that he did not have a "permanent retainer" 

relationship with Mr. Baez-Acuna, that Mr. Baez-Acuna paid him or 

made some other arrangements for remuneration in each individual 

-10-

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 10 
case, and that he was not retained until some time around April 20 

for the 1992 controlled buy. Id. at 102, 105. Mr. Baez-Acuna 

corroborat~d this testimony. Thus, Mr. Baez-Acuna did not invoke 

his right to counsel as to the 1992 controlled buy charges until 

approximately April 20 when he retained Mr. Easter to represent 

him. We agree with the district court that his waiver of that 

right during the April 6 and 8 interviews was therefore valid 

under Michigan v. Jackson. 

In sum, at the time of the April interviews, Mr. Baez-Acuna 

had invoked his Sixth Amendment right to counsel only for the 1993 

traffic stop charges, but the waivers he executed and the 

statements he attempts to suppress were unrelated to that charge. 

McNeil v. Wisconsin instructs that Sixth Amendment rights are 

offense-specific and that waivers are invalid only if they relate 

back to the specific offense for which the defendant has invoked 

his right to counsel. We therefore hold that the government did 

not violate Mr. Baez-Acuna's Sixth Amendment rights on April 6 and 

8 by interviewing him outside the presence of counsel. We affirm 

the district court's denial of the motion to suppress statements. 

III. 

Mr. Baez-Acuna also challenges the district court's 

enhancement of his base offense by two levels for his role in the 

criminal activity. When reviewing sentencing decisions pursuant 

to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), we review legal conclusions under a de 

-11-

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 11 
novo standard, United States v. Backas, 901 F.2d 1528, 1530 (lOth 

Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 870 (1990), and factual allegations 

under a clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Mays, 902 

F.2d 1501, 1503 (lOth Cir. 1990). 

The testimony at the sentencing hearing revealed the 

following. Ms. Guerrero, at Mr. Baez-Acuna's direction, 

accompanied him on several drug-buy trips to Fort Worth; 

repeatedly delivered cocaine and collected money from two 

customers, Cory Beckman and Diane Clarkson; and frequently weighed 

cocaine for her husband. Jennifer Gomez, an ex-girlfriend of Mr. 

Baez-Acuna, accompanied him on two trips to Fort Worth and often 

carried cocaine for Mr. Baez-Acuna during delivery runs. Ms. 

Gomez testified that she feared Mr. Baez-Acuna and therefore would 

never disobey his orders. Sent. Hrg. Tr. at 70. Ms. Gomez also 

testified that a bartender, Mr. Chileo, would serve as a conduit 

for Mr. Baez-Acuna's drug business, delivering cocaine to 

customers and returning purchase money to Mr. Baez-Acuna. David 

Alvarez, who moved into Mr. Baez-Acuna's apartment while Ms. Gomez 

was living there, played an instrumental role in the conspiracy. 

At Mr. Baez-Acuna's direction, Mr. Alvarez would break-down, 

package, and sell the cocaine. Following this testimony, the 

district court found, "[A]t some time or another, during the acts 

alleged and the acts which serve as acts of conviction, Mr. BaezAcuna directed and managed at least the following people: Alvarez, 

-12-

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 12 
Guerrero, Gomez, Chileo, Clarkson and ... Beckman." Sent. Hrg. 

Tr. at 130. 

The Sentencing Guidelines provide that a defendant who is an 

"organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal 

activity other than that described in (a) or (b) " shall have his 

offense level raised by two levels.2 U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(c). In 

determining whether the defendant's sentence should be raised, the 

court should consider "the exercise of decision making authority, 

the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the 

recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of 

the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning 

or organizing the offense . . . and the degree of control and 

authority exercised over others." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 n.3. We have 

held that section 3B1.1(c) is satisfied upon a mere showing "that 

the defendant exercised any degree of direction or control over 

someone subordinate to him in the distribution scheme." Backas, 

901 F.2d at 1530. However, the sale of drugs to a customer does 

not in and of itself prove that the defendant had an aggravating 

role in criminal activity. United States v. Moore, 919 F.2d 1471, 

2 Subsection {a) of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 provides: "If the 

defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that 

involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, 

increase by 4 levels." Subsection (b) of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 

provides: "If the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not 

an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or 

more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 3 

levels." 

-13-

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 13 
1477 (lOth Cir. 1990), cert. denied 501 U.S. 1211 (1991), modified 

on other grounds, 958 F.2d 310 (1992). 

The government concedes that Ms. Clarkson and Mr. Beckman 

were only customers of Mr. Baez-Acuna and that the district court 

erroneously factored their involvement into the enhancement 

calculus. Aplee. Br. at 15. Nonetheless, the evidence at the 

sentencing hearing unequivocally revealed that Mr. Baez-Acuna 

controlled and directed the activities of at least four others: 

Ms. Guerrero, Ms. Gomez, Mr. Chileo, and Mr. Alvarez. In 

following Mr. Baez-Acuna's orders, these individuals provided 

vital assistance in the procurement, distribution, and sale of 

cocaine. Given the involvement of these four participants, we 

conclude that the district court's enhancement of the base offense 

by two levels pursuant to section 3Bl.l(c) was not clearly 

erroneous. 

For the reasons set forth herein, we AFFIRM the judgment of 

conviction and the sentence the district court imposed. 

-14-

Appellate Case: 94-6033 Document: 01019282128 Date Filed: 04/26/1995 Page: 14