Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02169/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02169-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Luis Chavez-Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

' 

1 

F !LED 

Uoired States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUG 2 l 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. No. 89-2169 

JOSE LUIS CHAVEZ-RAMIREZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D. C. No. 89-090JC01) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Mr. Chavez-Ramirez appeals his sentence asserting that he 

should be classified as a minor participant. 

Mr. Chavez-Ramirez entered a plea of guilty to the crime of 

possession with intent to distribute less than fifty kilograms of 

marijuana. A presentence report was ordered, prepared and filed. 

Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the presentence report 

described the offense conduct as follows: 

* be 

for 

res 

On February 13, 1989, the defendant entered the United 

States from the Republic of Mexico to the Port of Entry 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2169 Document: 010110041438 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 1 
located west of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Defendant's 

vehicle was stopped for inspection and the border patrol 

agents indicated that upon questioning his citizenship, 

the defendant appeared nervous and stuttered when he 

answered "Mexico". The defendant then handed the border 

patrol agent an Immigration form and the agent noticed 

that the defendant's hands were shaking. The agent 

indicated that the Immigration form was torn in half and 

hard to read. Therefore, he handed it back to the 

defendant and asked him to proceed to the secondary 

inspection area. At the secondary station, the agent 

asked defendant if he had anything in the trunk of the 

vehicle. The defendant stated no and proceeded to open 

the trunk. The open trunk revealed a large bulge under 

the back window area of the trunk. The bulge was 

covered with black carpet type material. At this time 

the border patrol agents asked if they could bring the 

"drug sniffing" canine around the vehicle, to which the 

defendant agreed. The canine immediately alerted to the 

driver's door in the trunk area. The border patrol 

agents then pulled the black carpet material back and 

discovered small bundles of marijuana. Further search 

of the vehicle revealed a spare tire with bundles of 

marijuana and the back seat of the vehicle also had 

bundles of marijuana. A total of 62.8 pounds (net 

weight) of marijuana was found in the vehicle. 

Defendant, at the advice of his attorney, chose not 

to give a statement in this case. 

At the sentencing hearing, counsel for the defendant pointed 

out to the court several corrections that were not relevant to 

this appeal and then informed the court there was no need for an 

evidentiary hearing. No objections were filed. Defense counsel 

then made a statement to the court wherein he pointed out that Mr. 

Chavez-Ramirez "wasn't to make a whole lot of money" and that 

"[c]learly the defendant was not the only person involved in this 

activity." Defense counsel and his client had previously entered 

into a stipulation with the government, which was clearly and 

expressly nonbinding upon the court, agreeing that Mr. ChavezRamirez was a minor participant and therafore under S 3Bl.2(b) of 

the Sentencing Guidelines should be entitled to a reduction of two 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2169 Document: 010110041438 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 2 
' offense levels. A presentence report was filed, which included 

the probation department's recommendation that Mr. Chavez-Ramirez 

was not entitled to a downward adjustment for being a minor 

participant. 

The court found that as there were no disputed facts there 

was no need for an evidentiary hearing and found that Mr. ChavezRamirez was not a minor participant. 1 

Mr. Chavez-Ramirez sets forth a single issue or contention 

upon appeal and that is simply that the trial court committed 

error in failing to c~assify Mr. Chavez-Ramirez as a minor 

participant. Specifically, Mr. Chavez-Ramirez argues that 

marijuana distributing involves many individuals with different 

responsibilities and that Mr. Chavez-Ramirez was but a courier of 

the illegal drugs and other people were involved who played a 

larger and more blameworthy role. 

The standard of review for sentences imposed pursuant to the 

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 is statutorily codified at 18 u.s.c. 

S 3742. We must accept the findings of fact made by the district 

court unless they are clearly erroneous. 18 u.s.c. § 3742(d). A 

finding that a defendant is or is not a minor participant is a 

1 The transcript shows the district court found Mr. ChavezRamirez to be a "minimal participant." The parties acknowledged 

this to be a transcription error and the record was properly 

corrected. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2169 Document: 010110041438 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 3 
finding of fact. United States v. Arredondo-Santos, __ F.2d __ , 

__ (10th Cir. No. 89-2173 filed August 21, 1990), slip op. at 4. 

The facts are undisputed. Some unknown persons gave Mr. 

Chavez-Ramirez a car to drive from Mexico to a point in the United 

States. Mr. Chavez-Ramirez knew the marijuana was hidden in the 

car. Mr. Chavez-Ramirez was apprehended as he attempted to cross 

the border into the United States. The trial court did not concur 

that Mr. Chavez-Ramirez' position as a drug courier equates with 

minor participant status, and neither do we. This court has 

specifically held that the mere fact that defendant was a courier 

of illegal drugs does not warrant a downward adjustment by 

classification to minor participant status. Id. at __ , slip op. 

at 5. 

The decision to utilize the classification of minor 

participant to achieve a downward adjustment in base offense level 

is heavily dependent upon the facts. Defendant has the burden of 

proof when seeking to establish his entitlement to a downward 

adjustment in the base offense level. United States v. Kirk, 894 

F.2d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1990). There are no facts in the 

record before us that would establish the blame of other actors. 

We may assume many things, such as one person purchased the drugs; 

one may have planned the criminal activity; another may have 

financed the crime; and yet another was to sell the drugs. There 

is no such evidence in the record, and even if there were, it 

would be fruitless to speculate as to which is more or less 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2169 Document: 010110041438 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 4 
• J 

I • blameworthy than the others. When culpability is to be weighed, 

evidence must first exist of other participants and their role in 

the criminal activity. 

slip op. at 6. 

See Arredondo-Santos, __ F.2d at __ , 

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered For The Court 

Wade Bro:r:by 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-2169 Document: 010110041438 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 5