Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02308/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02308-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Cano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

DEC 1 0 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

MICHAEL 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

) 

) (D.C. 

CANO, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Nos. 89-2308 

89-2309 

Nos. CR-89-240-SC-3 

CR-89-239-SC-5) 

(Dist. N.M.) 

Before LOGAN, ANDERSON, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

The appellant-accused appeals from a forty-one month sentence 

imposed by the United States District Court for the District of 

New Mexico. The defendant pled guilty to two separate counts of 

possession with the intent to distribute less than fifty kilograms 

of marijuana in violation of 21 u.s.c. S 841(a)(l) and 18 u.s.c. 

S 2. The district court sentenced the appellant to a term of 

forty-one months based partly upon a 500 pound transaction to 

which the appellant had not pled guilty. The appellant claims 

that the district court erroneously considered the five-hundred 

pound sale in arriving at his forty-one month sentence. We find 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2308 Document: 010110097239 Date Filed: 12/10/1990 Page: 1 
• 

that the district court properly sentenced the appellant; 

therefore, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. 

FACTS 

According to the presentence report, on December 17, 1988, 

undercover agents contacted Manuel Cano, the appellant, seeking to 

procure a source from which to purchase marijuana and cocaine. 

The appellant introduced the agents to Hermilo Sandoval who sold 

ten pounds of marijuana to the agents on January 17, 1989 ("first 

transaction"). On February 6, 1989, Cano introduced the agents to 

Cerbando Gonzales. On March 30, 1989, the agents again met with 

Cano and requested that he contact Gonzales so that the agents 

could arrange a purchase. Cano contacted Gonzales and on that 

same day, the agents purchased a fifteen pound sample of marijuana 

from Gonzales ("second transaction"). Gonzales gave the agents 

his phone number and requested that they deal directly with him in 

the future. The agents met with Cano after the purchase and paid 

him a $200 commission fee. 

In early May, the agents and Gonzales arranged a 500 pound 

marijuana sale. On May 12, immediately following the sale ("third 

transaction"), Gonzales and his associates were arrested. A total 

of 747 pounds of marijuana was seized. 1 Cano pled guilty to the 

charges stemming from the first and second transactions. Cano did 

not, however, plead guilty to the charge stemming from the third 

transaction. 

1 The 747 pound total includes the 500 pounds involved in the 

sale. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2308 Document: 010110097239 Date Filed: 12/10/1990 Page: 2 
The sentencing report officer recommended that Cano's 

sentence take into account the 747 pounds of marijuana seized from 

the third transaction and accordingly calculated Cano's offense 

2 level ~t twenty-two. The sentencing range under level twenty-two 

is forty~one to fifty-one months. Had the presentence report not 

taken into account the third transaction, Cano would likely have 

been sentenced for a final offense level of twelve. 3 The 

sentencing range under level twelve falls between ten and sixteen 

months. The district court accepted the sentencing report 

officer's level twenty-two recommendation and sentenced Cano to a 

sentence of forty-one months. 

ANALYSIS 

Under u.s.s.G. § 1Bl.3·(a)(2), the base offense level is to be 

determined on the basis of "all such acts and omissions that were 

part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the 

2 Under u.s.s.G; § 2D1.l(c)(9), Cano's base sentence level was 

twenty-six because the total amount of marijuana was between 100 

and 400 kilograms. The sentencing report officer calculated the 

quantity at 315.8 kilograms. We are not sure how he arrived at 

this figure. The total weight in pounds was 772 (747 plus 25). 

The conversion factor is 2.2046 pounds per kilogram. Therefore, 

the total weight of marijuana involved in all three transactions 

was 350.18 kilograms. The sentencing report officer then 

recommended that he receive a two level downward adjustment for 

being a minor participant and a two level downward adjustment for 

acceptance of responsibility arriving at a final level calculation 

of twenty-two. 

3 Under u.s.s.G. § 2D1.l(c)(l4), the total amount of mariJuana 

involved in the first transaction and the second transaction fell 

between ten and twenty kilograms--twenty-five pounds times .454 

kilograms-per-pound equals 11.34 kilograms. Under§ 2D1.l(c)(l4), 

this quantity places the accused in an initial offense level of 

sixteen. Assuming that Cano would still have received the same 

four level downward adjustment for being a minor participant and 

for acceptance of responsibility, the final result would have been 

an offense level of twelve. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2308 Document: 010110097239 Date Filed: 12/10/1990 Page: 3 
' offense of conviction. 114 Even though Cano did not plead guilty to 

the third transaction, we held, in United States v. Rutter, 897 

F.2d 1558 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 88 (1990), 

that a district court must aggregate the quantities from drug 

offenses under§ 1Bl.3(a)(2) "regardless of whether the defendant 

was convicted of the underlying offenses pertaining to the 

additional amounts." Id. at 1562. In order to aggregate the 747 

pounds of marijuana seized as a result of the third transaction 

with the twenty-five pounds involved in the first two 

transactions, Cano must have aided and abetted the commission of 

the third transaction and it must have been part of the same 

course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the first two 

transactions. See United States v. Paulino, 873 F.2d 23, 25 (2d 

Cir. 1989). Furthermore, because the general theory of sentencing 

is that the seriousness of the punishment should reflect the 

accused's culpability,~ Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 293 

(1982), there must be evidence that Cano either desired the third 

transaction occur or that he knew that it would take place. 

We review the factual findings of the district court under 

the clearly erroneous standard, Rutter, 897 F.2d at 1560; however, 

we review the district court's legal conclusions with respect to 

the guidelines under the de novo standard. United States v. Kirk, 

894 F.2d 1162, 1163 (10th Cir. 1990). Although the facts were not 

well developed in this case, the uncontested facts contained in 

4 Although both parties argued that§ 1Bl.3(a)(l) was applicable, 

it is not. § 1Bl.3(a)(l) applies only to those acts committed in 

furtherance of the offense of conviction. Clearly, the third 

transaction was not committed in furtherance of the first and 

second transactions. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2308 Document: 010110097239 Date Filed: 12/10/1990 Page: 4 
the presentence report support the district court's finding that 

Cano knew, if not desired, that the third transaction would occur 

and that it was part of the same course of conduct as was involved 

in counts one and two. 

In paragraph nine, the report states that "Cano offered to 

introduce the agents to the permanent source of the marijuana and 

cocaine." Sentencing Report, ,r 9 at 4 (emphasis added). This 

sentence suggests that Cano knew that the agents were seeking a 

permanent supply and that the fifteen pound sale of March 30, 1989 

was a harbinger of bigger sales to come. The next sentence of 

paragraph nine provides further evidence that Cano desired the 

third transaction take place: "Cano's offer to introduce the 

agents to this source was with the understanding that he would 

receive a commission on each purchase of marijuana." Sentencing 

Report, ,r 9 at 4 (emphasis added). Significantly, Cano did not 

object to either of these sentences in paragraph nine. 5 

Paragraph thirteen provides further evidence of Cano's 

culpability in the third transaction: "On February 6, 1989, 

agents met with Cano and Gonzales. Gonzales advised the agents 

that they were presently moving 1000 pounds of marijuana every two 

weeks. He indicated that the organization was not interested in 

selling small amounts of marijuana, and that the least amount they 

would sell is 50 pounds. II Sentencing Report, ,r 113 at 5 

(emphasis added). Paragraph fourteen recites that the agents paid 

5 See Motion to Reduce Base Guideline Offense Level and 

Objections to Presentence Report, 1 1 at 1 (November 7, 1989) 

(contained in Record Vol. I, item 56) (hereinafter "Sentence 

Objections"). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-2308 Document: 010110097239 Date Filed: 12/10/1990 Page: 5 
Cano a $200.00 commission fee. Once again Cano did not object to 

these portions of the report. 6 These factual findings coupled 

with Cano's failure to object supports the district court's 

decision to aggregate the 747 pounds from the third transaction 

with the twenty-five pounds from the first and second 

transactions. 

CONCLUSION 

The evidence in paragraphs nine and thirteen of the 

presentence report convinces us that Cano intended that his 

introduction of the agents to Gonzales would result in a number of 

large transactions--or at least that Cano knew that such 

transactions were likely to occur. All of these transactions were 

part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan. We 

find that the district court did not err when it aggregated the 

747 pounds seized as a result of the third transactions with the 

twenty-five pounds from the first two transactions. Therefore, we 

AFFIRM Cano's sentence. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

6 In paragraph three of his sentencing objections, Cano responded 

by presenting an entrapment defense. Sentencing Objections, ,r 3 

at 2. However, nowhere in the Sentencing Objections does Cano 

argue that he was unaware that Gonzales dealt only with large 

quantities. In addition, agent Carillo stated that Cano was 

present when Gonzales told the agents that he dealt only with 

large quantities. Carillo Report, Supp. R. Vol. I at 4. Thus, it 

is clear from both the Carillo Report and the Sentencing Report 

that Cano was on notice before he participated in the second 

transaction that Gonzales and the agents intended to engage in 

large transactions. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-2308 Document: 010110097239 Date Filed: 12/10/1990 Page: 6