Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-50170/USCOURTS-ca9-13-50170-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hector Hurtado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

HECTOR HURTADO,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-50170

D.C. No.

3:12-cr-04756-BEN-1

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 7, 2014*

Pasadena, California

Filed July 29, 2014

Before: Barry G. Silverman, Richard C. Tallman, and

Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Silverman

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 Case: 13-50170, 07/29/2014, ID: 9184936, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 1 of 9
2 UNITED STATES V. HURTADO

SUMMARY**

Criminal Law

The panel affirmed a sentence imposed for importation of

cocaine into the United States, in a case in which the

defendant challenged the district court’s denial of a “minor

role” reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b).

The panel held that the district court applied the correct

legal standard, did not abuse its discretion in its application

of the guideline to the facts of the case, and did not clearly err

when it found that the defendant was a typical commercial

drug smuggler – no better, no worse – and not entitled to a

minor role reduction. The panel held that the district court

was not clearly erroneous in finding that although the

defendant may have been a cog in some larger wheel, he was

an essential cog who, solely for a sizeable sum of money,

knowingly smuggled a large quantity of narcotics into the

United States via a hidden compartment in his truck. 

Rejecting the defendant’s contention that he played a minor

role simply because he acted as a courier, the panel observed

that the district court clearly understood the defendant’s role

vis-a-vis other possible participants, and did not abuse its

discretion or clearly err in concluding that the defendant’s

role was not minor on these facts. 

The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that his

sentence was substantively unreasonable, and his challenges

to the district court’s imposition of a $450 fine.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 13-50170, 07/29/2014, ID: 9184936, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 2 of 9
UNITED STATES V. HURTADO 3

COUNSEL

James Fife, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego,

California for Defendant-Appellant.

Kyle B. Martin, Special Assistant United States Attorney, San

Diego, California for Plaintiff-Appellee.

OPINION

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:

Hector Hurtado appeals the 46-month sentence imposed

by the district court following his guilty plea to intentionally

and knowingly importing 11.64 kilograms of cocaine into the

United States from Mexico in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952

and 960. Hurtado was caught driving a truck loaded with

cocaine across the border, for which he was paid $3,500. 

Hurtado argues that the district court erred when it held that

he was not entitled to the “minor role” reduction provided for

in United States Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.2(b).

Hurtado’s argument is essentially this: Just as all children

in Lake Wobegon are above average, all drug couriers are, by

definition, below average and entitled to the minor role

reduction. Like the district court, we reject that argument. 

We hold today that the district court applied the correct legal

standard, did not abuse its discretion in its application of the

guideline to the facts of the case, and did not clearly err when

it found that Hurtado was a typical commercial drug

smuggler – no better, no worse – and not entitled to a minor

role reduction. The district court was not clearly erroneous

in finding that although Hurtado may have been a cog in

 Case: 13-50170, 07/29/2014, ID: 9184936, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 3 of 9
4 UNITED STATES V. HURTADO

some larger wheel, he was an essential cog who, solely for a

sizeable sum of money, knowingly smuggled a large quantity

of narcotics into the United States via a hidden compartment

in his truck. The district court clearly understood Hurtado’s

role vis-a-vis other possible participants, see United States v.

Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 473 (9th Cir. 2000), but

concluded that Hurtado’s role was not minor on these facts. 

In so ruling, the district court did not abuse its discretion or

clearly err.

I. Background

On October 25, 2012, Hurtado drove his pick-up truck

from Mexico to the United States through the Calexico,

California East Port of Entry. Agents referred him to

secondaryafter observing that he was nervous. At secondary,

the narcotics dog alerted to the firewall of the vehicle. A

subsequent search revealed 10 packages of cocaine, weighing

11.64 kilograms (25.6 pounds), concealed within the firewall

of the truck.

Hurtado stated that he worked for a drug trafficking

organization in Mexico and was being paid $3,500 to

smuggle the drugs into the United States in his truck. He had

received $1,000 in advance and had allowed the organization

to register the truck in his name. According to Hurtado,

someone in the organization would contact him with further

instructions after he crossed the border.

Hurtado was charged with knowingly and intentionally

importing 11.64 kilograms (25.6 pounds) of cocaine into the

United States from Mexico on October 25, 2012, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. Hurtado pled guilty to the

charge pursuant to a written fast-track plea agreement. The

 Case: 13-50170, 07/29/2014, ID: 9184936, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 4 of 9
UNITED STATES V. HURTADO 5

parties agreed that Hurtado could seek a downward

adjustment for minor role, but the government was free to

oppose the request. Hurtado retained his right to appeal if the

district court denied his request for a minor role reduction.

The crime carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 10

years and a maximum sentence of life. 21 U.S.C.

§ 960(b)(1)(B). The 2012 Sentencing Guidelines, in effect

when Hurtado was sentenced on April 15, 2013, were applied

at sentencing.

Assuming the applicability of a safety-valve departure

below the statutory minimum, the presentence report

recommended a sentence of 46 months, the low end of its

calculated guideline range. It did not recommend a

§ 3B1.2(b) minor role reduction, reasoning that Hurtado had

not established that he was substantially less culpable than the

average drug smuggler.

At sentencing, the parties jointly requested a minor role

reduction, arguing that couriers occupy a minor role when

compared to other individuals in drug organizations. Hurtado

and the government agreed that the guideline range was 30 to

37 months, and they jointly recommended a sentence of 30

months. The agreed-upon guideline calculation included a

two-level reduction for minor role.

The district court ruled that Hurtado had not established

that he was entitled to a minor role adjustment, but rather,

that Hurtado was the average drug smuggler who was paid a

sizeable sum of money to drive a significant amount of drugs

across the border, in a truck he agreed to have registered in

his name. The district court calculated an adjusted offense

 Case: 13-50170, 07/29/2014, ID: 9184936, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 5 of 9
6 UNITED STATES V. HURTADO

level of 23. With a criminal history category of I, the

guideline range computed by the judge was 46 to 57 months.

The district court sentenced the defendant to the low end

of this range, 46 months, followed by five years of supervised

release. The district court also fined the defendant $450,

finding that he could pay it in $25 quarterly payments during

incarceration. The district court specifically found that

Hurtado was a young man who could work in prison and

could afford to pay the fine.

II. Jurisdiction and standards of review

On April 15, 2013, Hurtado timely appealed the April 17,

2013, judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

We review the district court’s interpretation of the

guidelines de novo and application of the guidelines to the

facts for an abuse of discretion. United States v. RodriguezCastro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 2011). The finding

that Hurtado is not a minor participant is a factual finding that

we review for clear error. Id. We review the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse of discretion. Id. 

We review the district court’s decision to impose the fine and

the amount of the fine for reasonableness. United States v.

Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2009). The district

court’s finding that Hurtado is able to pay the fine is reviewed

for clear error. Id.

III. Minor role adjustment

Hurtado argues that the district court applied the wrong

legal standard when it decided that he did not qualify for a

 Case: 13-50170, 07/29/2014, ID: 9184936, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 6 of 9
UNITED STATES V. HURTADO 7

minor role adjustment pursuant to § 3B1.2(b). He argues that

the district court erroneously focused on the facts of the crime

and failed to compare him to other supposed participants in

the offense. Hurtado also claims that he played a minor role

simply because he acted as a courier. We reject each of these

arguments.

The district court clearly understood and applied the

correct legal standard when it denied Hurtado’s request for a

minor role adjustment. The guideline provides a two-level

decrease in the offense level if the defendant proves that he

“was a minor participant in any criminal activity.” U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.2(b) (2012); Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d at 1193. A

minor participant is “substantially less culpable than the

average participant.” Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d at 1193

(emphasis in the original). The guidelines recognize that, in

some circumstances, a courier may play a minor role, but we

have already held that simply being a courier does not

automatically entitle a defendant to the minor role

adjustment. Id.; United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th

Cir. 1991).

There’s an old saying: Crime doesn’t pay, but at least

you’re your own boss. In this case, Hurtado wasn’t even his

own boss; he was paid by others to commit the crime. 

However, the mere fact that Hurtado may have been doing

criminal work for hire does not itself establish that he was a

minor participant. That Hurtado’s supervisors, organizers,

recruiters, and leaders may have above-average culpability –

and thus are subject to aggravating role enhancements under

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 – doesn’t mean that Hurtado is

“substantially less culpable than the average participant.” 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 n.3(A) (emphasis added). The requisite

 Case: 13-50170, 07/29/2014, ID: 9184936, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 7 of 9
8 UNITED STATES V. HURTADO

comparison is to average participants, not above-average

participants.

The district court also properly considered the facts of the

crime and the totality of the circumstances. RodriguezCastro, 641 F.3d at 1193. It properly considered the quantity

of drugs, the amount paid to Hurtado, and the fact that he

allowed the truck to be registered in his name. Any of these

facts alone may justify denial of a minor role. Id.; United

States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir. 2000).

This is not to say that some other courier in some other

case might not be eligible for a minor role adjustment. We

hold only that the district court did not clearly err in finding

that in this case, Hurtado was an average participant and not

substantially less culpable than others who may have been

involved in the crime.

IV. Substantive reasonableness of the sentence

Hurtado argues that his 46-month sentence was

substantively unreasonable because he was a routine,

unskilled courier without managerial or decision-making

authority. But the district court did not abuse its discretion by

sentencing the defendant to 46 months after considering the

relevant sentencing factors and arguments made by the

parties. The sentence was the low-end guideline sentence

recommended by the presentence report and, thanks to the

operation of the safety valve provisions of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, well below the 120-month

statutory mandatory minimum for the 11.64 kilograms of

cocaine Hurtado imported into the country.

 Case: 13-50170, 07/29/2014, ID: 9184936, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 8 of 9
UNITED STATES V. HURTADO 9

V. Fine

Finally, Hurtado argues that the district court imposed the

fine without stating that it considered all of the factors set

forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a) and U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2 and

without considering his lack of resources. However, the

district court was not required to list the factors or to

“articulate every factor” that it considered when it assessed

the fine. Orlando, 553 F.3d at 1240. The district court

clearly considered relevant factors, including Hurtado’s

ability to pay the fine, ability to pay over a period of time, his

earning capacity, and his financial resources. See U.S.S.G.

§ 5E1.2(d)(2); 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a).

Nor did the district court clearly err when it found that

Hurtado could afford to pay a $450 fine in future quarterly

installments of $25. United States v. Haggard, 41 F.3d 1320,

1329 (9th Cir. 1994). Even if Hurtado was indigent at the

time of sentencing, the district court could impose a fine if it

found that Hurtado had “earning capacity to pay the fine in

the future.” Orlando, 553 F.3d at 1240. In this case, Hurtado

admitted that he is in good health and is a trained auto

mechanic, admissions which fully support the district court’s

finding. United States v. Hernandez-Arias, 745 F.3d 1275,

1285 (9th Cir. 2014).

Finally, the fine of $450, which is well below the

guideline minimum of $10,000 set forth in U.S.S.G.

§ 5E1.2(c)(3), is reasonable.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-50170, 07/29/2014, ID: 9184936, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 9 of 9