Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02656/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02656-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Manuel Gomez-Coronado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2656

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Victor Manuel Gomez-Coronado, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 12, 2007

Filed: February 15, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Victor Manuel Gomez-Coronado (Gomez-Coronado) pled guilty to conspiracy

to distribute in excess of 500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. At sentencing, the district court1

 determined

Gomez-Coronado was a “manager or supervisor” of a drug conspiracy and applied a

Appellate Case: 06-2656 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2007 Entry ID: 3279040
2

Section 3B1.1(b) authorizes a three-level enhancement if “the defendant was

a manager or supervisor . . . and the criminal activity involved five or more

participants or was otherwise extensive.”

3

Prior to sentencing, Gomez-Coronado objected to two paragraphs of the PSR,

arguing he opposed the three-level enhancement pursuant to the allegation he was a

-2-

three-level role enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b),2

 resulting in an

advisory Guidelines sentencing range of 235 to 293 months’ imprisonment. The

district court sentenced Gomez-Coronado to 235 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’

supervised release. On appeal, Gomez-Coronado challenges the district court’s

imposition of the managerial or supervisory role enhancement. 

We review the district court’s determination Gomez-Coronado was a “manager

or supervisor” for clear error, see United States v. Plancarte-Vazquez, 450 F.3d 848,

853 (8th Cir. 2006), and conclude the district court did not clearly err in applying the

three-level role enhancement to Gomez-Coronado’s base offense level. “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. (internal quotation omitted).

Additionally, a sentencing court should consider the defendant’s

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, the nature and scope

of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised

over others. 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4. 

Because Gomez-Coronado did not object to any specific factual matters set

forth in the PSR, the PSR’s facts are deemed admitted.3

 See United States v. Paz, 411

Appellate Case: 06-2656 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2007 Entry ID: 3279040
manager or supervisor, because “[w]ithout the addition of this enhancement, [his]

offense level would be a level 35.” One paragraph discusses the proposed three-level

enhancement, and the other sets forth the recommended total offense level of 38.

-3-

F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 2005). The PSR’s undisputed facts supporting the district

court’s determination that Gomez-Coronado was a “manager or supervisor” include

Gomez-Coronado’s actions in (1) dealing in large quantities of methamphetamine;

(2) supplying methamphetamine to other dealers; (3) renting a car for another

individual to transport methamphetamine; (4) arriving at a residence with a firearm

to enforce a drug transaction; (5) “fronting” methamphetamine to an individual and

requiring payment later; and (6) making phone calls from prison to his unemployed

wife, Ricki Gomez (Gomez), during which Gomez stated “the business” was going

well and she had made $8,000. Additionally, in Gomez-Coronado’s plea agreement,

he acknowledged receiving supplies of methamphetamine and redistributing it to at

least six other individuals, who Gomez-Coronado “often supplied” on a “front” basis.

This evidence is itself sufficient to support the manager or supervisor role

enhancement.

In addition to the PSR’s undisputed facts, the district court also relied on the

testimony of Amy Lawrence (Lawrence), a witness at the trial of Gomez-Coronado’s

co-conspirator. The district court had presided over the co-conspirator’s trial less than

two months before Gomez-Coronado’s sentencing. During the co-conspirator’s trial,

Lawrence testified Gomez-Coronado was her supplier, had recruited her to distribute

methamphetamine for him, and had “fronted” methamphetamine to her. GomezCoronado challenges the district court’s reliance on Lawrence’s testimony as a basis

for the three-level enhancement, arguing Gomez-Coronado was denied due process

by his inability to confront or cross-examine Lawrence. Because Gomez-Coronado

did not object at sentencing to the district court’s consideration of Lawrence’s

Appellate Case: 06-2656 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/15/2007 Entry ID: 3279040
4

“[B]efore an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must

be (1) ‘error,’ (2) that is ‘plain,’ and (3) that ‘affect[s] substantial rights.’” Johnson

v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507

U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then

exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if the error seriously affects

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 467.

-4-

testimony, we review Gomez-Coronado’s claim for plain error.4

 See United States v.

Sharpfish, 408 F.3d 507, 511 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Upon doing so, we reject Gomez-Coronado’s argument. “Because the

sentencing process does not carry the same evidentiary protections guaranteed during

a criminal trial, relevant, reliable evidence from a codefendant’s trial presided over by

the sentencing judge may be considered in sentencing [the defendant] even though

[the defendant] was not present, represented, or able to confront and cross-examine

witnesses at his codefendant’s trial.” Smith v. United States, 206 F.3d 812, 813 (8th

Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (internal citations omitted). Due process requires only that the

defendant have (1) “notice of the proposed enhancement” and (2) “an opportunity to

rebut or explain the evidence to be used against him.” Id.; see also United States v.

Brown, 430 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir. 2005) (concluding “the admission of hearsay

testimony at sentencing does not violate confrontation rights” (quotation omitted)).

In this case, Gomez-Coronado received notice of the proposed three-level

enhancement through both his plea agreement and the PSR. Additionally, GomezCoronado objected to the PSR’s recommended role enhancement before sentencing,

acknowledged (through defense counsel) during sentencing that the district court had

heard evidence relating to the enhancement in an earlier trial and was given the

opportunity to explain personally whether Gomez-Coronado had in fact recruited

Lawrence to join the conspiracy. Thus, the district court did not err by relying, in part,

upon Lawrence’s testimony as additional support for the three-level role enhancement.

Appellate Case: 06-2656 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/15/2007 Entry ID: 3279040
-5-

We therefore affirm Gomez-Coronado’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2656 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/15/2007 Entry ID: 3279040