Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-01668/USCOURTS-ca8-14-01668-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amado Correa-Santos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1668

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Amado Correa-Santos

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________

 Submitted: January 16, 2015

 Filed: May 8, 2015

____________

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

Amado Correa-Santos pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. After vacating his

Appellate Case: 14-1668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273069 
original sentence, the district court1

 sentenced him to 240 months’ imprisonment. 

Correa-Santos now appeals. We affirm.

In early 2010, law enforcement officials learned that Javier Lopez-Montejano

and Mario Lopez were supplying large amounts of methamphetamine from Iowa to

northwest Arkansas. During a telephone call intercepted by the Drug Enforcement

Agency (“DEA”), Lopez-Montejano and Lopez identified Correa-Santos as a

distributor. In a second intercepted call, Lopez asked Correa-Santos if he needed

“cars,” a code word for methamphetamine. Correa-Santos responded that he would

answer later. In the interim, Lopez made the same offer to a second Arkansas

distributor. The second distributor asked for five pounds of methamphetamine, and

Lopez made arrangements to have the drugs sent via minivan on March 13, 2010.

On March 12, the day before the planned shipment, Lopez called Correa-Santos

and explained that he had coordinated a delivery to Arkansas. Correa-Santos said that

he did not need more methamphetamine because he had enough to continue

distributing. The next morning, Missouri State Highway Patrol troopers stopped the

minivan transporting the drugs to Arkansas. A trooper’s drug dog alerted to the

presence of narcotics, and a subsequent vehicle search revealed approximately five

pounds of methamphetamine in a hidden compartment.

The DEA and Immigration & Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) jointly

investigated the methamphetamine-distribution ring responsible for this drug

shipment. The investigation revealed that Correa-Santos had received five-pound

shipments of methamphetamine every two to three months for two years. He then

sold the drugs either directly or through another dealer. Telephone records showed

that Correa-Santos had spoken with members of the methamphetamine-distribution

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-1668 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273069 
ring, including the second Arkansas distributor for whom the March 13 shipment from

Lopez and Lopez-Montejano was intended. Investigators also learned that CorreaSantos and his relatives maintained several “stash” houses in Arkansas used by the

methamphetamine-distribution ring. Finally, another member of the drug ring told

authorities that Correa-Santos had obtained cell phones and vehicles for the

distribution operation.

Based on this and other evidence, Correa-Santos was indicted for conspiracy

to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine mixture. He pleaded guilty. 

In determining Correa-Santos’s advisory sentencing guidelines range, the district court

adopted the Presentence Investigation Report’s drug-quantity determination, which

included the five pounds of methamphetamine intercepted on March 13. When

Correa-Santos objected, the court responded by citing testimony offered by the

Government’s witness at the sentencing hearing. The court explained that this

testimony established that the March 13 shipment was attributable to Correa-Santos

because it was part of the same conspiracy and either known to him or reasonably

foreseeable to him. The court then completed the guidelines’ calculation and

sentenced Correa-Santos to 240 months’ imprisonment, five years of supervised

release, and a $25,000 fine.

Correa-Santos successfully moved for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after his

trial counsel failed to file a direct appeal upon his request. United States v.

Correa-Santos, Crim. No. 10-50110-002, 2013 WL 6669411, at *1 (W.D. Ark. Dec.

18, 2013). The district court vacated Correa-Santos’s original sentence and later

imposed an identical sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment, five years of supervised

release, and a $25,000 fine. Correa-Santos timely appeals.

Correa-Santos argues solely that the district court erred at sentencing because

it improperly included the March 13 shipment in its drug-quantity determination. We

review the district court’s drug-quantity determination for clear error. United States

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-1668 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273069 
v. Jefferson, 725 F.3d 829, 833 (8th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 572 U.S. ---, 134 S. Ct.

1954 (2014). We reverse “only if the entire record definitely and firmly convinces us

that a mistake has been made.” United States v. Garcia, 774 F.3d 472, 474 (8th Cir.

2014) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Minnis, 489 F.3d 325, 329 (8th Cir.

2007)).

Correa-Santos contends that the district court clearly erred by attributing the

five pounds of methamphetamine to him because he took no action to further the

March 13 shipment. This argument misconstrues the law. “In a drug conspiracy case,

the district court may consider amounts from drug transactions in which the defendant

was not directly involved if those dealings were part of the same course of conduct or

scheme.” United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416, 421 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting United

States v. Bradley, 643 F.3d 1121, 1126 (8th Cir. 2011)). If the dealings were part of

the same course of conduct or scheme, the court may attribute the drug quantities to

the defendant if it finds, based on a preponderance of the evidence, (1) “that the

transaction or activity involving those drugs was in furtherance of the conspiracy” and

(2) that the transaction or activity was “either known to that defendant or reasonably

foreseeable to him.” United States v. Shakur, 691 F.3d 979, 991 (8th Cir. 2012)

(quoting United States v. Brown, 148 F.3d 1003, 1008 (8th Cir. 1998)).

Correa-Santos argues that the March 13 shipment was improperly attributed to

him because the transaction was not part of the same course of conduct or scheme in

which he admitted involvement. Rather, he contends that the March 13 transaction

was part of a second, separate conspiracy. We disagree and thus find no clear error

on this basis. At sentencing, the Government proved through the testimony of ICE

Special Agent Paul Cottrell that the March 13 shipment was part of the same course

of conduct or scheme as the conspiracy in which Correa-Santos admitted involvement. 

Agent Cottrell testified that both Correa-Santos and the intended recipient of the

March 13 shipment were Arkansas methamphetamine distributors for LopezMontejano and Lopez’s operation. Telephone records produced by the Government

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-1668 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273069 
showed that Correa-Santos spoke with Lopez and with the second Arkansas dealer. 

Additional testimony revealed that Correa-Santos and his relatives maintained stash

houses that were accessible to members of the distribution ring, including the intended

recipient of the intercepted shipment. Because the March 13 shipment included the

same individuals as the conspiracy in which Correa-Santos admitted involvement and

because the participants aimed to achieve the same objective—the distribution of

methamphetamine in northwest Arkansas, we reject Correa-Santos’s argument that the

transaction was not part of the same course of conduct or scheme. See Walker, 688

F.3d at 422 (“Evidence ‘that many of the same people [were] involved with each other

and sought to achieve the same objectives’ supports finding a single conspiracy.”

(alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Mosby, 177 F.3d 1067, 1071 (8th Cir.

1999)).

In addition, we are unpersuaded that Correa-Santos’s act of rejecting a single

shipment on March 12 was sufficient to effectuate his withdrawal from the conspiracy. 

Indeed, when Correa-Santos refused the methamphetamine offer, he told Lopez that

he had enough to continue distributing. See United States v. Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d

641, 672-73 (8th Cir. 2008) (“To withdraw from a conspiracy at common law, a

conspirator must show not only that he ceased activities in furtherance of the

conspiracy, but also that he either made a ‘clean breast’ to the government or else

communicated the fact of withdrawal to his co-conspirators in a manner reasonably

calculated to reach them.”). We therefore conclude that the district court did not

clearly err when it treated the intercepted shipment as part of the conspiracy in which

Correa-Santos admitted participating.

We next analyze whether the March 13 shipment was in furtherance of the

conspiracy and whether it was known or reasonably foreseeable to Correa-Santos. We

find that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the shipment was in

furtherance of the conspiracy. In his guilty plea, Correa-Santos admitted that he

participated in a conspiracy involving a known distributor in Iowa (Lopez) to

-5-

Appellate Case: 14-1668 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273069 
distribute methamphetamine in northwest Arkansas. And Agent Cottrell testified that

Lopez orchestrated the delivery of the five-pound shipment in response to a request

from a second Arkansas dealer. This drug shipment was designed to facilitate the

distribution of methamphetamine in the region. It thus furthered the conspiracy, and

we see no clear error on this basis.

Finally, we reject Correa-Santos’s contention that the district court clearly erred

when it found that Correa-Santos either knew of or reasonably could have foreseen

the March 13 shipment. The facts of this case are easily distinguishable from those

in which a district court erroneously attributed all drug quantities implicated in a given

conspiracy to a defendant based solely on his conspiracy conviction. See, e.g., United

States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699, 709 (8th Cir. 2012). Agent Cottrell testified that

Correa-Santos regularly received five-pound shipments of methamphetamine from the

operation for two years. And Agent Cottrell testified that Lopez informed CorreaSantos of the shipment planned for March 13. These circumstances, combined with

Correa-Santos’s ties to the second Arkansas dealer, which included telephone

conversations and shared access to the stash houses, support the district court’s

conclusion that Correa-Santos either knew of or reasonably could have foreseen the

five-pound shipment. The district court specifically referenced Agent Cottrell’s

testimony in its response to Correa-Santos’s objection at sentencing, and we therefore

find no clear error on this basis. See United States v. Montanye, 996 F.2d 190, 192

(8th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (“[W]hen a conspiracy defendant objects that the quantity

of drugs attributed to the defendant in the [presentence investigation report] are not

reasonably foreseeable to the defendant, the district court must make a foreseeability

finding about the objecting defendant.”); cf. Miller, 698 F.3d at 709 (vacating sentence

because the district court’s only rationale for including a drug quantity in its

calculation was that the defendant had been convicted of conspiracy and therefore

“should be charged with the entire amount of those drugs” linked to the conspiracy).

-6-

Appellate Case: 14-1668 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273069 
For the above reasons, we conclude that the district court did not commit clear

error by including the five-pound methamphetamine shipment in the drug quantity

attributed to Correa-Santos at sentencing. We affirm.

______________________________

-7-

Appellate Case: 14-1668 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273069