Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01714/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01714-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adrian Tinajero
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1714

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the District

* of Minnesota.

Adrian Tinajero, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 16, 2006

Filed: December 5, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Adrian Tinajero appeals the sentence he received after pleading

guilty to one count of aiding and abetting the distribution of amphetamine in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court1

 found

that Defendant was not entitled to safety-valve relief, was not entitled to a role

reduction, and was subject to a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice.

Defendant challenges all of these findings. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-1714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2006 Entry ID: 2115303
-2-

I. Background

A special agent and a confidential informant set up a controlled drug transaction

with Defendant’s brother, Ixsael Tinajero, to take place at a fast-food restaurant in

Worthington, Minnesota. The agent and confidential informant were in a pick-up

truck in the restaurant’s parking lot. Ixsael Tinajero and Alexander Sandoval arrived

together in a vehicle, and Defendant arrived with Jose Guadalupe in a separate

vehicle. The confidential informant exited the truck and spoke to Ixsael Tinajero.

Ixsael Tinajero then entered the truck. Later, Defendant approached the truck,

carrying a one-pound, plastic-wrapped package under his shirt. Defendant then

entered the truck and handed the package to Ixsael, who gave it to the agent. The

agent then gave Ixsael $7500, which Ixsael counted in the presence of Defendant and

the agent. Additional officers then arrested Ixsael Tinajero, Sandoval, Defendant, and

Guadalupe. It was later determined that the package contained a substance or mixture

of amphetamine. A grand jury indicted Ixsael Tinajero, Sandoval, and Defendant.

Ixsael Tinajero and Sandoval eventually pled guilty to charges of conspiring to

distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture of amphetamine. 

Following indictment, while on pretrial release, Defendant fled to Mexico. He

then failed to appear for his trial and remained a fugitive for over a year. While in

Mexico, he did not maintain contact with the court or his attorney. He then was

arrested while attempting to re-enter the United States and was returned to Minnesota.

Following his return to Minnesota, he sought the opportunity to plead guilty and offer

information in an attempt to secure safety-valve relief and obtain an offense-level

reduction for acceptance of responsibility under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines. 

During a proffer session where Defendant was represented by counsel, he

claimed that he went to Sandoval’s house in Sioux City, Iowa, on the day before the

controlled transaction. There, Sandoval asked him for a ride to Worthington.

Appellate Case: 06-1714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2006 Entry ID: 2115303
-3-

Defendant agreed, and Sandoval handed him the plastic-wrapped package of drugs,

asking Defendant to hold on to the package. Defendant claimed that he did not know

at the time that the package contained drugs and that Sandoval did not tell him the

package contained drugs. Defendant stated that the package did have a chemical odor.

According to Defendant, on the following day—the day of the controlled

transaction—Ixsael Tinajero and Sandoval drove together to Worthington, and

Defendant and another man drove separately, carrying the package to Worthington.

Defendant claimed that he did not know the package contained drugs until officers

interrupted the controlled transaction to arrest the participants, at which time Ixsael

Tinajero told him to hide the package. Defendant did not explain why Sandoval drove

himself to Minnesota even though Defendant had claimed that Sandoval initially

asked him for a ride.

During the proffer session, Defendant denied having ever used drugs and

answered no when asked if he had ever been in Oklahoma. Both of these statements

were false. Regarding drug use, he now asserts that, although he had previously used

drugs, he thought the question was whether he had ever sold drugs. When confronted

with an Oklahoma business card police had obtained from his wallet, Defendant

admitted that, in fact, he had driven through Oklahoma, but he thought the initial

question was whether he had ever stayed in Oklahoma. Later, at his plea colloquy,

Defendant contradicted his earlier claim that he was unaware of the contents of the

package. Specifically, by pleading guilty, Defendant admitted that he knowingly

aided and abetted in the transaction.

At sentencing, Defendant received a two-level reduction for acceptance of

responsibility. Defendant argued that he should not receive an enhancement for

obstruction of justice based on his flight to Mexico. In support of his argument, he

asserted that his flight from Minnesota, his time as a fugitive, and his failure to appear

for trial were all for the purpose of caring for his ailing father. He presented a letter

from a doctor in Mexico who stated that Defendant’s father lived in a rural area and

Appellate Case: 06-1714 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/05/2006 Entry ID: 2115303
-4-

that the father needed family assistance following major surgery to change dressings

and avoid infection. Defendant also sought a reduction in his offense level for having

played only a minor role in the offense and safety-valve relief based on his claim that,

prior to sentencing, he truthfully disclosed all that he knew regarding the offense. The

district court determined that Defendant had not truthfully disclosed all that he knew

regarding the offense, in that Defendant was not credible (given his lies about drug

use and travel to Oklahoma) and that his claim regarding ignorance of the package’s

contents was unbelievable. As a result, the district court denied safety-valve relief.

The district court rejected Defendant’s attempt to excuse his escape to Mexico,

absence from trial, and time as a fugitive and applied a two-level enhancement for

obstruction of justice based on Defendant’s actions. Finally, the district court denied

Defendant’s request for a role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because the district

court disbelieved Defendant’s claims regarding the limited extent of his role in the

offense.

II. Discussion

All of the issues on appeal rest upon factual determinations made by the

sentencing court. We review these factual determinations for clear error. United

States v. Little Hawk, 449 F.3d 837, 839 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Stanley, 362

F.3d 509, 511 (8th Cir. 2004). We review the district court’s interpretation and

application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d

1012, 1016 (8th Cir. 2005). Defendant does not challenge the overall reasonableness

of his sentence. 

Appellate Case: 06-1714 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/05/2006 Entry ID: 2115303
-5-

A. Denial of Safety-Valve Relief

A defendant is only eligible for safety-valve relief if, inter alia:

[n]ot later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has

truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the

defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the

same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan . . . .

U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). Here, the district court made a factual finding that Defendant

did not comply with the requirement of full and truthful disclosure. The district court

expressly found that Defendant told an unbelievable story regarding knowledge of the

contents of the package and that this story was an attempt to falsely characterize his

own role in the offense as minimal.

The district court’s finding enjoys adequate support and is not clearly

erroneous. Defendant’s actions, as observed by the surveillance officers and the agent

involved in the controlled transaction, were inconsistent with his claimed ignorance

of the contents of the package. Specifically, his acts of carrying the package

concealed beneath his shirt, handing it to Ixsael at the site of the transaction, and

watching the undercover officer pay Ixsael $7500 are inconsistent with his claim of

not knowing the contents of the package until a later time. Also, the package he

received from Sandoval was wrapped in plastic and carried a chemical smell, making

it even less likely that he didn’t know its contents. In addition, the district court

reasonably found other aspects of Defendant’s story unbelievable. Although

Defendant claimed his role was limited and Sandoval had merely asked him for a ride,

Sandoval did not actually ride with Defendant, and Defendant offered no adequate

explanation for this inconsistency. Further, the district court reasonably concluded

that, if Defendant’s role was as limited as he claimed, Sandoval would not have

entrusted him with a full pound of drugs. See United States v. Alvarado-Rivera, 412

F.3d 942, 948 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (in a case involving twenty-seven pounds of

Appellate Case: 06-1714 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/05/2006 Entry ID: 2115303
-6-

methamphetamine, approving an inference regarding the level of a defendant’s

involvement with a drug enterprise based on the quantity of illicit drugs entrusted to

the defendant). Because the district court did not clearly err when it determined that

Defendant failed to satisfy the disclosure requirement of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5), we

affirm the district court’s denial of safety-valve relief.

B. Application of Obstruction of Justice Enhancement

Defendant argues that his flight from Minnesota while on pre-trial release

should not be considered obstruction of justice because his flight was motivated by

a desire to aid his ailing father. Under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, a two-level increase is

warranted if a “defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or

impede, the administration of justice during the course of the investigation,

prosecution, or sentencing. . . .” Application Note 4(e) to § 3C1.1 lists “willfully

failing to appear, as ordered, for a judicial proceeding” as an example of conduct that

warrants application of this enhancement. Here, Defendant willfully failed to appear

for trial even though he was under an order to appear. The district court correctly

noted that Defendant did not voluntarily surrender, but was captured while attempting

to re-enter the United States. We note also that Defendant failed to maintain contact

with his attorney and remained a fugitive for an extended period of time.

Defendant claims that his absence was for an excusable purpose, namely, to

care for his father. Defendant, however, comes from a large family and does not

explain why he, rather than one of his many siblings, had to care for his father.

Further, Defendant does not explain his failure to maintain contact or return

voluntarily when the alleged medical emergency had passed. Accordingly, even if we

could excuse his obstruction of justice based on the nature of the alleged purpose for

his flight, he has not presented facts that would justify overlooking his actions in this

case. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Defendant obstructed justice,

and it properly applied the two level enhancement.

Appellate Case: 06-1714 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/05/2006 Entry ID: 2115303
-7-

C. Denial of Minor Role Adjustment

As noted, the district court denied a minor role adjustment based on

Defendant’s admitted and observed conduct and based on a disbelief of Defendant’s

claims about having played a minor role. Defendant argues that he was merely a mule

who did not appreciate the gravity of his actions or the contents of the package before

it was too late. The evidence, however, showed that Defendant was not merely a

mule, but participated in the actual drug transaction as one of the two persons who

entered the vehicle with the agent and confidential informant to consummate the

transaction. In addition, we note again that his fellow defendants trusted him with

over a pound of drugs.

Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, a defendant who is a minimal participant may be

entitled to a four-level reduction in his offense level, and a defendant who is a minor

participant may be entitled to a two-level reduction. A defendant who falls between

these two categories may be entitled to a three-level reduction. Id. “‘The propriety

of a downward adjustment is determined by comparing the acts of each participant in

relation to the relevant conduct for which the participant is held accountable and by

measuring each participant’s individual acts and relative culpability against the

elements of the offense.’” United States v. Morales, 445 F.3d 1081, 1085 (8th Cir.

2006) (quoting United States v. Ramos-Torres, 187 F.3d 909, 915 (8th Cir. 1999)).

Here, at least four persons were involved in the activities surrounding the controlled

transaction. Of those four persons, only two participated in the actual transaction,

Defendant and Ixsael Tinajero. According to his own proffer statement, Defendant

received the drugs, housed the drugs, transported the drugs from Sioux City to

Minnesota, carried the drugs to the buyer’s car, and participated in the actual

transaction. Given these admitted acts, we do not believe the district court clearly

erred in denying a mitigating-role adjustment.

Appellate Case: 06-1714 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/05/2006 Entry ID: 2115303
-8-

Defendant argues primarily that the sentencing court improperly relied on a

statement made by co-defendant Sandoval in order to assess Defendant’s role in the

offense. This argument is without merit. Defendant objected to the sentencing court’s

reliance on Sandoval’s statement. The district court considered the objection and, at

sentencing, stated:

First, the defendant objects to paragraph 11 of the PSR alleging that the

statement of co-defendant[,] Alexander Sandoval, included erroneous

facts. However, the probation officer simply reported what co-defendant

Sandoval had stated and not whether such statements were based on true

facts. Moreover, the Court determines that the findings on this factual

objection are not necessary because the controverted matter will not be

taken into account or affect sentencing.

Because the district court stated expressly that it was not considering the objected-to

statement at sentencing, and because the district court’s findings regarding

Defendant’s role in the offense are otherwise supported by substantial evidence, we

affirm the district court’s denial of a minor role adjustment.

 The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1714 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/05/2006 Entry ID: 2115303