Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15445/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15445-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Edgardo Arrioza-Melendez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15445

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00385-WSD-LTW-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE EDGARDO ARRIOZA-MELENDEZ, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 28, 2015)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Edgar Arrioza-Melendez appeals his 155-month sentence of 

imprisonment, imposed as a downward variance from his advisory guideline range 

USCA11 Case: 14-15445 Date Filed: 07/28/2015 Page: 1 of 8
2

of 210 to 262 months, after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(b) and 846. On appeal, Arrioza-Melendez argues that the district 

court erred in holding him accountable for 22.88 kilograms of methamphetamine 

found in a vehicle abandoned by a co-conspirator because possession of those 

drugs was not within the scope of activity he agreed to undertake as part of the 

conspiracy. After careful review, we affirm.

I.

Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) agents had been investigating 

the activities of a drug-trafficking organization bringing drugs into the United 

States from Mexico.

1

 On February 16, 2013, DEA agents intercepted telephone 

calls indicating that Alier Pineda-Sanchez, the leader of the drug-trafficking 

organization in Atlanta, and another co-conspirator, Alejandro Gomez-Martinez, 

would be participating in a drug transaction that day. 

Based on the intercepted information, DEA agents set up surveillance 

around Pineda-Sanchez’s trailer (trailer 25-B) in a trailer park in Mableton, 

Georgia. Two Jeeps, one silver and one green, left the residence and returned a 

few hours later. At the request of the DEA, the Georgia State Patrol conducted a 

traffic stop of the silver Jeep, in which Pineda-Sanchez was a passenger, within 

 1

 The following facts are taken from undisputed statements in the presentence 

investigation report and a DEA agent’s testimony at the sentencing hearing.

USCA11 Case: 14-15445 Date Filed: 07/28/2015 Page: 2 of 8
3

view of trailer 25-B. Gomez-Martinez drove the green Jeep past the traffic stop 

and abandoned it near a vacant lot in the trailer park. He walked to trailer 25-B,

briefly stopped inside, and then left in another vehicle. 

Immediately after Gomez-Martinez left the area, DEA agents saw ArriozaMelendez and another co-conspirator, Gerardo Milian Nagera, exit trailer 25-B and 

covertly observe the traffic stop. After a short while, they returned to trailer 25-B, 

retrieved two bags, and walked across the street to another trailer (trailer 8-V). 

Arrioza-Melendez abandoned one of the bags in the yard and then entered trailer 8-

V. Agents retrieved the bag, which contained six kilograms of cocaine, sixty

grams of heroin, and thirty-seven grams of methamphetamine. Arrioza-Melendez 

was found hiding in trailer 8-V. 

After his arrest, Arrioza-Melendez, who had a key to trailer 25-B, gave DEA 

agents consent to search the trailer. Inside trailer 25-B, agents found signs of 

active methamphetamine processing, as well as quantities of methamphetamine 

and cocaine. The DEA agent who testified at the sentencing hearing explained that 

the trailer was being used to process powder methamphetamine into a crystalline 

form (“ice”). Meanwhile, DEA agents found twenty-three kilograms of 

methamphetamine in the green Jeep abandoned by Gomez-Martinez. Based on 

this evidence, DEA agents determined that the methamphetamine seized from the 

Jeep was destined for trailer 25-B to be processed by Arrioza-Melendez and others. 

USCA11 Case: 14-15445 Date Filed: 07/28/2015 Page: 3 of 8
4

In the presentence investigation report (“PSR”), the probation officer 

calculated Arrioza-Melendez’s base offense level at 38. In arriving at level 38, the 

probation officer attributed to him the 22.88 kilograms of methamphetamine found 

in the green Jeep, in addition to the drugs in the bag and the trailer. ArriozaMelendez objected that the drugs in the Jeep should not be attributed to him 

because there was no evidence that he had any knowledge of or relationship to 

those drugs. He did not object to being held accountable for the other drugs. 

At Arrioza-Melendez’s sentencing, the government put forth the testimony 

of a DEA agent who was involved in the surveillance and search of trailer 25-B. 

After hearing this testimony, as well as argument from the parties, the district court 

determined that the drugs in the Jeep were properly attributed to ArriozaMelendez. The court found that the drugs were possessed by co-conspirators, that 

the activity—taking the Jeeps to pick up a delivery of methamphetamine and bring 

it back to trailer 25-B—was within the scope of activity to which ArriozaMelendez had agreed, and that Arrioza-Melendez knew that Pineda-Sanchez and 

Gomez-Martinez would engage in that activity. In other words, the court found 

that the Jeep and the drugs found therein were reasonably foreseeable in 

connection with Arrioza-Melendez’s level of participation in the conspiracy. Thus, 

the court overruled Arrioza-Melendez’s objection and then sentenced him to serve 

155 months in prison.

USCA11 Case: 14-15445 Date Filed: 07/28/2015 Page: 4 of 8
5

II.

We review the district court’s determination of the drug quantity attributable 

to a defendant for clear error.2

 United States v. Almedina, 686 F.3d 1312, 1315 

(11th Cir. 2012). A factual finding is clearly erroneous only if we are left with a 

definite and firm conviction that the sentencing court has made a mistake. Id. The 

government bears the burden of presenting reliable and specific evidence 

establishing drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. 

III.

To calculate the base offense level for a drug crime, the sentencing court 

must first determine the quantity of drugs attributable to the defendant. See 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. In calculating drug quantity, “a member of a drug conspiracy is 

liable for his own acts and the acts of others in furtherance of the activity that the 

defendant agreed to undertake and that are reasonably foreseeable in connection 

with that activity.” United States v. Lee, 68 F.3d 1267, 1274 (11th Cir. 1995) 

(quoting United States v. Ismond, 993 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir. 1993) (emphasis 

added)); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Thus, where the drug quantity 

 2 The government suggests that Arrioza-Melendez’s claim of error is reviewed only for 

plain error because he did not renew his objection after the court pronounced sentence. But our 

precedent does not require a party “to repeat objections made during the course of sentencing 

proceedings following the imposition of sentence,” and an objection will be preserved so long as 

the “objection to be preserved and the grounds for the objection are clear to the sentencing court 

at the conclusion of the hearing.” United States v. Maurice, 69 F.3d 1553, 1557 (11th Cir. 1995). 

The only issue on appeal was squarely presented to, and resolved by, the district court. 

Therefore, it was preserved.

USCA11 Case: 14-15445 Date Filed: 07/28/2015 Page: 5 of 8
6

attributed to a defendant is based in part on co-conspirator conduct, we have 

directed district courts to make individualized findings establishing (1) a 

defendant’s level of participation in the conspiracy, and (2) “the amount of drugs 

that are reasonably foreseeable in connection with that level of participation.” Lee, 

68 F.3d at 1274-75; see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt. n.2.

Arrioza-Melendez challenges the sufficiency of the government’s proof as to 

his level of participation in the conspiracy. He concedes that the government’s 

evidence suggested that he “could have foreseen the arrival of the 

methamphetamine shipment at the trailer where he lived,” but he argues that the 

government failed to show that possession of the methamphetamine in the green 

Jeep “fell within the scope of the wrongful activity to which Appellant had 

agreed.” (Appellant’s Br. at 10-11). 

The district court did not clearly err in attributing the drugs found in the 

green Jeep to Arrioza-Melendez. Substantial evidence in the record supports the 

court’s determination that the methamphetamine shipment in the green Jeep was 

reasonably foreseeable in connection with the scope of Arrioza-Melendez’s 

participation in the conspiracy. Arrioza-Melendez was part of a drug-trafficking 

conspiracy along with Pineda-Sanchez and Gomez-Martinez. The conspiracy 

involved, among other things, converting powder methamphetamine into ice at 

trailer 25-B. On the day in question, DEA agents found signs of active 

USCA11 Case: 14-15445 Date Filed: 07/28/2015 Page: 6 of 8
7

methamphetamine processing going on in the trailer. Arrioza-Melendez was 

present at the trailer from before the time Pineda-Sanchez left to when he returned, 

and he left the trailer with drugs after observing the traffic stop involving PinedaSanchez. Other evidence also suggested that Arrioza-Melendez lived at trailer 25-

B along with Pineda-Sanchez. Thus, it is reasonable to infer both that ArriozaMelendez knew Pineda-Sanchez and Gomez-Martinez would be obtaining a 

substantial amount of methamphetamine and that his co-conspirators’ conduct in 

obtaining the methamphetamine shipment was in furtherance of the drugtrafficking activity that Arrioza-Melendez agreed to undertake. See Lee, 68 F.3d at 

1274; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Indeed, the fact that Arrioza-Melendez concedes 

that he could have foreseen the methamphetamine shipment itself strongly suggests

that he had agreed to that level of activity by participating in the conspiracy. 

Arrioza-Melendez argues that the government’s proof did not establish his 

level of involvement over time through surveillance of a longer duration. Had the 

district court held him accountable for previous drug transactions, more proof of 

his role in the conspiracy over time may have been necessary. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.3 cmt. n.2 (explaining that “[a] defendant’s relevant conduct does not 

include the conduct of members of a conspiracy prior to the defendant joining the 

conspiracy, even if the defendant knows of that conduct”). Here, however, the 

only drugs at issue were found on February 16. Based on the evidence from that 

USCA11 Case: 14-15445 Date Filed: 07/28/2015 Page: 7 of 8
8

day, as summarized above, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that 

the district court made a mistake in attributing to Arrioza-Melendez the 22.88 

kilograms of methamphetamine found in the green Jeep. See Almedina, 686 F.3d 

at 1315.

IV.

In short, the district court did not clearly err in attributing to ArriozaMelendez the drugs found in a vehicle driven by a co-conspirator. Accordingly, 

we affirm the sentence. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-15445 Date Filed: 07/28/2015 Page: 8 of 8