Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02210/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02210-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Guzman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

• f 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appee,ls 

Tenth Ci~1:~•r 

APR 1 7 1991 

URITBD STATES COURT OF APPEAJROBERT L. HOECKER 

FOR THE TBRTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JOSE GUZMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-2210 

(D.C. No. 89-257-01-JB) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER ARD JUDGHElff* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34 (a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*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: 90-2210 Document: 010110034229 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 1 
. ' 

Jose Guzman plead guilty to the charge of conspiracy to 

distribute less than fifty kilograms of marijuana. The district 

court sentenced him to thirty-three months, finding him to have 

acted as a supervisor under § 3Bl.l(c) of the United States 

Sentencing Guidelines. Mr. Guzman appeals from this sentence, 

arguing that he should not have been sentenced as a supervisor. 1 

We affirm. 

Whether Mr. Guzman qualifies in the present circumstances as 

a supervisor is a factual determination which will be upheld 

unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Moore, 919 F.2d 1471, 

1477 (10th Cir. 1990). The district court based its determination 

on facts contained in the presentence report detailing Mr. 

Guzman's orchestration of the drug transaction in question. 

Specifically, the presentence report is based upon information 

provided by James Aiello, an undisputed associate of Mr. Guzman in 

the conspiracy. The only question raised by Mr. Guzman concerns 

his relationship with Mr. Aiello. 

Mr. Aiello was arrested when state police received 

information that he was carrying marijuana. He immediately chose 

to cooperate with the police in the apprehension of the other 

members of the conspiracy. Mr. Aiello told the officers when he 

was arrested that he was following the directions of Mr. Guzman to 

pick up the shipment of marijuana in Raton, New Mexico, and 

transport it to Santa Fe, where he would deliver it to someone 

1

Mr. Guzman also claims in the "Statement of Issues" section of 

his brief that the district court improperly sentenced him at the 

upper level of the guideline range. Mr. Guzman fails to present 

any argument on this point. Therefore, we deem it abandoned. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2210 Document: 010110034229 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 2 
. { \ 

else. Mr. Aiello stated that when no one contacted him in Santa 

Fe to accept delivery of the marijuana, Mr. Guzman directed him to 

go back to Raton and to call a certain telephone number to make 

the transfer of the marijuana. The police accompanied Mr. Aiello 

to Raton where they arrested Marcelo Arambula-Avelar, who arrived 

at the designated meeting place to receive the marijuana from Mr. 

Aiello. 

Mr. Guzman claims that Mr. Aiello's version of their 

relationship is false. He argues that Mr. Aiello was the true 

supervisor of the conspiracy, and that Mr. Aiello had hired him 

merely as an interpreter to assist him in his dealings with his 

Mexican suppliers. Mr. Guzman claims that Mr. Aiello's statement 

is unreliable because it is "triple hearsay" and self-serving. 

We emphasized in United States v. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177, 

1179 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3302 (1990), that a 

district judge is not bound by the rules of evidence regarding the 

information he may consider in sentencing. We held in Beaulieu 

that a sentencing judge may consider relevant hearsay evidence. 

Id. In United States v. Backas, 901 F.2d 1528, 1530 (10th Cir.) 

cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 190 (1990), we also held that "section 

3Bl.l(c) and the term 'supervisor' are satisfied upon a showing 

that the defendant exercised any degree of direction or control 

over someone subordinate to him in the distribution scheme." Mr. 

Guzman presents no evidence other than his own written statement 

contained in the presentence report that he was merely an 

interpreter and not the supervisor of this conspiracy. In 

sentencing Mr. Guzman, the district court simply adopted as the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2210 Document: 010110034229 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 3 
more credible Mr. Aiello's version of his relationship with Mr. 

Guzman. We find no reason to believe that the district court 

clearly erred in reaching this conclusion. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-2210 Document: 010110034229 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 4