Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02387/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02387-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Plancarte
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2286

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* 

v. * 

* 

Isidro Plancarte-Vazquez, also known *

as Isidro Plancarte-Rueda, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

__________ Appeals from the United States

District Court for the Northern

No. 05-2387 District of Iowa.

__________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Manuel Plancarte, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2006

Filed: June 27, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Appellate Case: 05-2387 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061395
-2-

___________

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Manuel Plancarte and his son, Isidro Plancarte-Vazquez, pled guilty to

conspiracy to distribute 15,000 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846 and possession with intent to distribute 50

grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

841(b)(1)(B). The district court sentenced Plancarte to 275 months' imprisonment and

sentenced Plancarte-Vazquez to 168 months' imprisonment. Both appeal their

sentences. We affirm the district court's judgment as to Plancarte, but vacate the

judgment and remand for resentencing as to Plancarte-Vazquez. 

Based on information that an individual named Lori Perez was involved in the

illegal sale of narcotics, officers executed a search warrant at her residence in Sioux

City, Iowa, where they arrested her after uncovering drug paraphernalia and a small

amount of methamphetamine. During an interview following her arrest, Perez told

officers that Isidro Plancarte-Vazquez and his father, Manuel Plancarte, were the

sources of the methamphetamine and claimed that she had purchased approximately

50 pounds (22,680 grams) of methamphetamine and 15 to 20 pounds (5,443.2 to 9,072

grams) of marijuana from them. 

Following an investigation involving several controlled buys and a traffic stop,

Plancarte and Plancarte-Vazquez were indicted and charged with conspiracy to

distribute 15,000 grams or more of methamphetamine and possession with intent to

distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. The defendants pled guilty to both

counts of the indictment, and the matter proceeded to sentencing, where the parties

argued four guideline issues: (1) drug quantity; (2) offense role; (3) enhancement for

use or attempted use of a minor; and (4) acceptance of responsibility.

Appellate Case: 05-2387 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061395
-3-

At sentencing, the government presented three witnesses: Steven Hamel, Tony

Wingert, and Lori Perez. Hamel was Lori Perez's former boyfriend, and he testified

that from the spring of 2003 until Perez's arrest on October 21, 2003, he saw

Plancarte-Vazquez selling about 10 pounds of methamphetamine to Perez and

witnessed Plancarte selling about five pounds of methamphetamine to Perez. During

these transactions, which would take place at Perez or Plancarte's house, Perez would

hand the money to Plancarte-Vazquez, who would count it; then Plancarte would take

the package of drugs out of the front of his pants and hand it to Perez or to PlancarteVazquez, who would hand the package to Perez.

Perez, who pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine, was the government's main witness at sentencing. She testified

that it was her belief that Plancarte was in control of the business. She testified that

Plancarte-Vazquez would have to ask his father for permission to sell drugs to her.

Also, when Plancarte went back to Mexico, he would often call Plancarte-Vazquez to

check on him, and on occasion would send another son from Mexico to Sioux City to

watch over the operation. Occasionally, Plancarte would cut his son off from selling

methamphetamine by sending him back to Mexico, or would get upset with him and

chastise him for mismanaging the business. Perez also testified that she was aware

that other people worked for Plancarte because at times she would accompany him

and Plancarte-Vazquez to other houses in order to obtain methamphetamine, or she

would have to go into another room when other people arrived during her

methamphetamine transactions with Plancarte. Perez also testified that Plancarte

would tell her how to make more money on the methamphetamine he was selling to

her and would warn her about having a lot of people coming to her house to buy

methamphetamine.

Wingert, a deputy sheriff with the Woodbury County Sheriff's Department,

testified at sentencing about the investigation into the activities of Plancarte and his

son. Wingert testified that, at least six months before the defendants' arrest, Perez had

Appellate Case: 05-2387 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061395
1

As set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n. 10) (2004), when a case

involves multiple drug types—here, methamphetamine and marijuana—the drugs are

converted to marijuana equivalent to determine the defendant's base offense level. See

United States v. Lopez-Arce, 267 F.3d 775, 782 n.4 (8th Cir. 2001).

-4-

identified both defendants and admitted to being involved in buying more than 50

pounds of methamphetamine with them, an amount consistent with that Perez testified

to at sentencing. In addition, Wingert relayed information he had received from an

informant during the course of his investigation, who claimed to have received

approximately 10 pounds of methamphetamine from the defendants and who

corroborated other information provided by Perez.

Based on the evidence presented at sentencing, the district court found Plancarte

responsible for at least 30,000 kilograms of marijuana equivalent, for a base offense

level of 38.1

 The court imposed a three-level enhancement for Plancarte's role as a

manager or supervisor of a criminal activity involving five or more participants, see

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), and a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, see

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), for an adjusted offense level of 39. The court rejected the

government's request for an enhancement for the use or attempted use of a minor to

commit the offense, finding the record to be unclear regarding his direction or use of

his son, Plancarte-Vazquez, during the early years of the conspiracy when the uncle

was more involved than Plancarte. With a criminal history category of I, the advisory

guidelines sentencing range was from 262 to 327 months' imprisonment. The court

sentenced Plancarte to 275 months' imprisonment on each count, to be served

concurrently, five years of supervised release on each count, to be served

concurrently, and a $200 special assessment.

The district court found Plancarte-Vazquez responsible for "at least 10,000

kilograms of marijuana equivalent," but then found that this amount called for an

Appellate Case: 05-2387 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061395
-5-

offense level of 38, the same as that given to Plancarte based on a drug quantity

calculation of 30,000 kilograms. After receiving a three-level reduction for

acceptance of responsibility, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) and with a criminal history

category of I, the guidelines sentencing range for Plancarte-Vazquez was between 168

and 210 months' imprisonment. The district court sentenced him to 168 months'

imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently, five years of supervised

release on each count, to be served concurrently, and a special assessment of $200.

I.

Plancarte first challenges the district court's drug quantity calculation, which we

review for clear error. United States v. Vinton, 429 F.3d 811, 816-17 (8th Cir. 2005).

"The government bears the burden of proving drug quantity by a preponderance of the

evidence." United States v. Marshall, 411 F.3d 891, 894-95 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Plancarte argues that the quantity of drugs attributed to him was clearly

erroneous because the government's main witness on that issue, co-conspirator Lori

Perez, provided uncertain and inconsistent estimates of the quantities of drugs

involved in the conspiracy. When calculating drug quantity in the context of a

narcotics trafficking conspiracy, the sentencing court may consider all transactions

known or reasonably forseeable to the defendant that were made in furtherance of the

conspiracy. See United States v. Mickelson, 378 F.3d 810, 821-22 (8th Cir. 2004);

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). It is well-established that the testimony of co-conspirators

may be sufficiently reliable evidence upon which the court may base its drug quantity

calculation for sentencing purposes. Mickelson, 378 F.3d at 821. Moreover, "[a]

district court's assessment of a witness's credibility is almost never clear error given

that court's comparative advantage at evaluating credibility." United States v.

Killingsworth, 413 F.3d 760, 763 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 633 (2005);

see also Mickelson, 378 F.3d at 822 ("sentencing court's assessment of the credibility

of a witness is nearly unreviewable.") (quotation marks omitted). 

Appellate Case: 05-2387 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061395
-6-

Here, the district court based its drug quantity calculation on Perez's testimony

that Plancarte and his co-conspirators had supplied her with more than 50 pounds

(22,680 grams) of methamphetamine and at least 15 pounds of marijuana (5,443.2

grams) over the course of the conspiracy. The presentence report converted these

amounts into 45,365.44 kilograms of marijuana equivalent. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1,

comment. (n. 10). While the court acknowledged "some level of uncertainty and

inconsistency" with regard to Perez's testimony, the court stated that it could find from

the testimony that the quantity of drugs involved substantially exceeded the 30,000

kilogram threshold required to reach a base offense level of 38, even if it was

insufficient for the court to find the much greater quantity recommended in

presentence report. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1). The court did not commit clear error

by crediting Perez's testimony, and that testimony provided sufficient support for the

court's drug quantity calculation. 

Next, Plancarte argues that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the role

enhancement he received for being a supervisor or manager of a drug trafficking

conspiracy. The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a three-level enhancement "[i]f

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."

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). Plancarte does not dispute the sentencing court's finding that the

instant drug trafficking conspiracy involved at least five participants—Plancarte,

Plancarte-Vazquez, Plancarte's other son, an uncle, and Lori Perez. Nor does he

dispute the district court's alternative finding that the conspiracy was "otherwise

extensive" in that it involved "a significant amount of drugs over a substantial period

of time involving a number of people with a constant connection between this country

and the country of Mexico." Accordingly, the only issue with respect to the threelevel enhancement is whether the district court erred in finding that Plancarte was a

"manager or supervisor." 

 

Appellate Case: 05-2387 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061395
-7-

We review the district court's determination that Plancarte was a "manager or

supervisor" for clear error, with the burden on the government to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that an enhancement was warranted. United States v.

Mesner, 377 F.3d 849, 851 (8th Cir. 2004). For a sentencing court to impose a

managerial or supervisory role enhancement there must be sufficient evidence from

which to find that the defendant "controlled at least one other participant in the drug

trafficking offense." Id. at 851-52 (quoting United States v. Yerkes, 345 F.3d 558,

563 (8th Cir. 2003)); United States v. Padilla-Pena, 129 F.3d 457, 470 (8th Cir. 1997).

Here there was sufficient evidence from which the court could make such a finding.

At sentencing, Lori Perez testified that she purchased approximately 50 pounds

of methamphetamine and 15 pounds of marijuana from defendants or PlancarteVazquez’s uncle, that she helped Plancarte-Vazquez wire drug proceeds to Plancarte

in Mexico, and that Plancarte sent his older son from Mexico to supervise PlancarteVazquez's operation in Sioux City. She also stated that Plancarte-Vazquez had to get

permission from Plancarte to sell drugs to her, and that Plancarte would tell her how

to conduct her business. Plancarte would also get upset with his son and cut him off

from selling and send him back to Mexico. All of this supported Perez's belief that

it was Plancarte who was "more in control of everything," which in turn supported the

district court's finding that Plancarte controlled at least one of the four other people

involved in the conspiracy.

In response, Plancarte points to aspects of Perez's testimony suggesting that he

was merely a distributor and that he did not exercise sufficient managerial or

supervisory control. For example, Perez admitted on cross-examination that she had

no idea whether it was Plancarte or another relative who was the actual "leader" of the

family's drug business. To be sure, one's status as a distributor of narcotics would not,

standing alone, transform one into a manager or supervisor. United States v. Bahena,

223 F.3d 797, 804 (8th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Willis, 433 F.3d 634, 636

Appellate Case: 05-2387 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061395
-8-

(8th Cir. 2006) ("In a drug conspiracy case, 'a defendant must do more than sell for

resale' to be found an organizer or leader.") (quotation marks omitted). But neither

is the government required to prove the defendant controlled his co-conspirators'

every movement to find that he occupied a leadership role. United States v. Pitts, 173

F.3d 677, 681-82 (8th Cir. 1999). Instead, "it is enough if the defendant assumed

organizing or leadership functions such as recruiting others, determining the price or

location of sales, and so forth." Willis, 433 F.3d at 636. 

 

Based on the record before it, the district court found that Plancarte was more

than a mere distributor; he "was in fact a manager or supervisor" and performed

functions associated with such a role within the organization. As discussed

previously, this finding enjoyed considerable support from the testimony of Lori

Perez. Although aspects of her testimony could support a contrary finding, "[w]here

there are two permissible views of the evidence, the district court's choice between the

two cannot be clearly erroneous." United States v. Wells, 127 F.3d 739, 745 (8th Cir.

1997) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985)). Finding

no clear error with respect to the court's role determination, we affirm Plancarte's

sentence.

II.

Plancarte-Vazquez challenges the district court's drug quantity calculation.

Because he did not object to this calculation at sentencing, we review his claim for

plain error. United States v. Nace, 418 F.3d 945, 946 (8th Cir. 2005). We will correct

a plain error only if it affected his substantial rights and "seriously affect[s] the

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." United States v.

Warren, 361 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507

U.S. 725, 736 (1993)).

Appellate Case: 05-2387 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061395
2

In this regard the district court stated:

Accordingly, for the court to conclude, based upon the testimony that has

been offered, that we have what amounts to almost 55,000 kilograms of

marijuana equivalent, which is what would be used to determine the base

offense level, it is pretty hard for the court to conclude on this record that

that number or a number particularly close to it would be an accurate

number. However, it is not necessary for the court to do that. The court

need only determine that the record supports at least 10,000 kilograms

of marijuana, and this record clearly supports a level of drug

involvement at that level. So I have no difficulty finding that the base

level is supported based upon the record that has been provided to me at

an offense level 38, even though the court is not able to find on this

record the specific amount in excess of that figure. 

-9-

Here, we have no trouble concluding that the district court committed plain

error by reaching a base offense level that was not supported by its drug quantity

finding. At sentencing the district court found Plancarte-Vazquez responsible for "at

least 10,000 kilograms of marijuana equivalent," but then concluded that this amount

called for an offense level of 38.2

 This was error, since an offense level of 38 must be

supported by a finding of at least 30,000 kilograms of marijuana equivalent, see

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1), while a finding of at least 10,000 kilograms, without more,

would only support a base offense level of 36, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2). 

Plancarte-Vazquez argues that this plain error affected his substantial rights

because his sentence of 168 months' imprisonment was greater than that he would

have received absent the error. He points out that with a criminal history category of

I, his adjusted offense level based on the quantity of drugs the district court actually

found would have resulted in a guidelines range of 135 to 168 months' imprisonment,

but due to the district court's error in setting his offense level he was subject to a range

of 168 to 210 months' imprisonment. U.S.S.G. Chapter 5 Part A. Plancarte-Vazquez

Appellate Case: 05-2387 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061395
-10-

contends that he suffered prejudice when the district court sentenced him at the bottom

of the higher guideline range, even though his sentence of 168 months' was within the

lower guidelines range applicable to the drug quantity finding the district court

actually made.

"In a number of cases, we have granted plain error review when the district

court applied the wrong mandatory guidelines range because of clerical or other

errors." United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 553-54 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing

Warren, 361 F.3d at 1059; United States v. Weaver, 161 F.3d 528, 530 (8th Cir. 1998)

(per curiam); and United States v. Comstock, 154 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 1998)); cert.

denied, 126 S.Ct. 266 (2005). In Weaver, we exercised our discretion to remand for

resentencing where a plain typographical error affected the sentencing guideline

range, even though, as here, the sentence the district court imposed fell within both

the correct and the incorrect guideline ranges. We were unwilling to say that the

defendant's substantial rights were not affected by the error, because a review of the

record persuaded us that the district court "might well have sentenced Weaver to a

lesser term of imprisonment under the range that would have applied but for the

typographical error." Id. at 530. Furthermore, we reasoned that an exercise of our

discretion to correct the plain error was appropriate since "the public's confidence in

the judicial process would be undermined if an inadvertent typographical error were

to be allowed to influence the length of a criminal defendant's sentence." Id.

More recently and for essentially the reasons stated in Weaver, we exercised our

discretion to remand for resentencing where an increased sentence resulted from an

"obvious guideline computation error." Warren, 361 F.3d at 1059-60. Unwilling to

speculate as to what sentence the defendant would have received absent the plain

error, we found in the record "enough ambiguity to conclude that the district court

'might well' have arrived at a lesser term of imprisonment." Id. at 1059 (quoting

Weaver, 161 F.3d at 530). We also concluded that "the public's confidence in the

Appellate Case: 05-2387 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061395
-11-

judicial process would be undermined as much when an increased sentence results

from an obvious guideline computation error as from an obvious typographical error,"

and accordingly exercised our discretion to remand. Id. 

The mismatch here between the drug quantity finding and the offense level is

akin to the obvious guideline computation and typographical errors that justified

remands in Weaver and Warren. Although the government argues that PlancarteVazquez suffered no prejudice because the district court "obviously intended to say

'at least 30,000 kilograms of marijuana equivalent'" as required to support the offense

level it announced, our review of the record reveals that this conclusion is not so

obvious. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court expressed its concerns

with the precision and accuracy of the testimony of Lori Perez, the government's "key

witness" on the issue of drug quantity. Moreover, the district court specifically stated

that it was imposing a sentence at the bottom of the guideline range it applied in order

"to accommodate the unique circumstances of your lack of criminal history and the

influence that your family apparently had on you in this case." Lastly, the district

court's assignment of an offense level to Plancarte-Vazquez, the son, that was equal

to the offense level it assigned to Plancarte, the father and recipient of a leadership

role enhancement, at least suggests that the district court "might well" have meant

what it said with respect to the drug finding, as opposed to the offense level. 

On this record, "we believe there is enough ambiguity to conclude that the

district court 'might well' have arrived at a lesser term of imprisonment," and, if so,

the public's confidence in the judicial process would be undermined if the greater term

is left intact. Warren, 361 F.3d at 1059 (quoting Weaver, 161 F.3d at 530).

Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to remand for resentencing, but in doing so,

express no opinion as to what sentence the district court should impose, nor do we

address Plancarte-Vazquez's remaining arguments on appeal, as they may not arise at

resentencing. 

Appellate Case: 05-2387 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061395
-12-

III.

We affirm the conviction and sentence of Manuel Plancarte, but vacate the

judgment with respect to Isidro Plancarte-Vazquez and remand for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2387 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/27/2006 Entry ID: 2061395