09
- 48 02
- cr

U SA v
. Sa n ch ez ( T ac co) U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER Ru lings by summary orde r d o n ot h ave prece den tial ef f ect. Citatio n to a summary orde r filed on or after Janu ary 1, 2007 , is permitted and is g overn ed by Federal R ule o f A ppe llate Proced ure 32. 1 a nd this c ourt’s Loc al R ule 3 2.1 .1. Whe n c iting a su m m ar y or de r in a d ocumen t filed w ith th is cou rt, a party must cite either the Federal A ppe ndixor an electron ic da taba se (w ith th e n otation “su mmary orde r”). A partycitinga summary orde r must serve a c opyof it on an y p arty not repre sented by co u n se l. At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, at 500 Pea rl Street, in the City

of Ne w York, on the 5 day

of January , two thousand eleve n. th P r e s e n t : G U ID O C A LA B R E S I,

ROBERT D. SACK, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, Circuit Judges ,

____________________________________________________________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Appellee , - v - No. 09-4802-c r EDWI N SANCHEZ , also know as T, a lso known as Trix, EDGAR NI EVES, also known as K, J ORGE MORAL ES, also known as G, a lso known as Fat Georg ie, L EONI DAS DEJES US PEREZ- DOMI

NGUEZ , also known as L oca, A NTONI O PESANTE, MI CHAEL PESANTE, JOSE R OD RI GU EZ , a lso kn own a s Joe Cr a c k, JUSTI N R I L EY , LUI S JUST I

NIAN O, a lso known as Cra zor, MI GUEL NEGRON, a lso known as Mikey , GREG B ENI TEZ , GL ENDA BLANC O, VICT ORC OLON , al s o kn o wn as J un i e, M I C HA E LJ AC KS ON , al s o kn o wn as Ug, ALAN ROGERS, also known as Shug , RUBENCARDONA, also known a s Chris, also known as Mrs. C, CARL OS CI

NTRON, De fe nd an ts , MA RCO TA CCO , a lso kn own a s So ft , Defendant-

Appellant
.

____________________________________________________________2

F or De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt: Rob e rt M. B e rk e , B ri dg e po rt , CT For Appellee : Alina P. Rey nolds (Sandra S. Glover , of counsel ), Assistant United States Attorney , for David B . Fe in, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, B ridg eport, CT. Ap pe a l f ro m th e Un ite d St ate s D istri c t Co ur t f or the Di str ic t of

Conne c tic ut ( Un de rh ill , J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. Def endant- Appellant Mar co Ta cco a ppeals fr om an Octobe r 26, 2009 judg ment of the United States District Court for the D istrict of Connecticut (Underhill, J. ) e nt er edfo l l o wi n g a plea of guilty to one count of c onspiring to possess with intent to distribute in ex cess of 1000 g rams of he roin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) , 841(b)( 1)(A) , and 846. We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, proc edura l history

of this case , and the spe cification of iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. The district cour

t sentence d Tac co princ ipally to 96 months’ imprisonm ent. Tac co contends for

the first time on appe al that the district cour t relied on the g overnme nt’s mistaken estimates of a

co-de fenda

nt’s sentenc e in deter

mining Ta cco’ s sentence , in violation of his due pr oc e ss r ig hts . “ Du e pr oc e ss r e qu ir e s ( 1) that a de fe nd ant n ot b e se nte nc e d b a se d o n mate ri a lly fa lse inf or matio n; ( 2) that a

de fe nd ant b e g ive n n oti c e and an o pp or tun ity to c onte st the fa c ts upon which the se ntencingauthority relies in imposing the sentenc e; and ( 3) that a de fenda nt not be sente nced ba sed on a material misappre hension of fa ct.” Torres v. United States , 140 F.3d 392, 404 (2d Cir. 1998) (inter nal citations omitted). Tac co conte nds that the district court, in cr aftinghis sentence , relied on the g overnme nt’s3

mistaken repr esentations as to the sentence imposed on a co- defe ndant, J ose Rodriguez. At
se nte nc ing , th e g ov e rnme nt o pin e d th at de fe ns e c ouns e l’ s r e qu e ste d s e nte nc e of sixty months ’ imprisonment was “a

low figure,” contra sting Ta cco’ s criminal history and hig h-ra

nking position in the drugtraff

ickingorg anization with that of Rodrigue z, who was a low-le vel member without
a cr iminal recor d. Def

. App’x A-14. The g overnme nt speculate d that Rodrigue z rece ived “two y ear s or somethinglike that,” or pe rhaps “ closer to f ive year s,” but also noted that she w as “not sure what [ Rodrigue z] g ot.” Id. De sp ite thi s unc e rt a int y , th e g ov e rnme nt c on c lud e d th at whil e five year s might have been “ fair” for someone in Rodrigue z’s posit ion, Tacc o’s involvement rende red a

five-year sentenc e “too low by

sever al year s.” Id. at A -1 5. Rod ri gue z wa s in

a c tua lity sentenc ed to one year

and one da

y of imprisonment. Ba sed on this rec ord, howe ver, w e ca nnot conclude that the district court wa s provided with any materia lly

false inf ormation, bec ause the g overnme nt’s uncer

tainty as to Rodriguez’s sentenc e wa s made c lear to the district court. Mo re ov e r, e ve n a ssumin gthat th is w a s mate ri a lly fa lse inf or matio n, the re is n oth ingin the re cord to sug g est that the district court r elied on the g overnme nt’s estimates of Rodriguez’s sentenc e in deter

mining a se ntence for Ta cco. T he district cour t provided a le ng thy

explanation fo r t he se nte nc e that it

imp os e d, e mph a sizi ngthe se ri ou sn e ss o f t he c ri me , th e ne e d f

or sp e c if ic and g ener al deter

renc e, and the fac t that the reque sted sentenc e wa s only one-sixth of the bottom of the Guide lines rang e of thirty -year s-to-life imprisonment. The district c ourt did not ask any questions about Rodrigue z’s sentence or make ref ere nce to Rodriguez in any way afte r the g overnme nt’s statement about the matter. Ac cording ly , Tac co has not shown a ny err or.4

We have c onsidered a ll of Tacc o’s re maining a rguments and find them to be without merit. Acc ording ly , for the f oreg oing r easons, the judgment of the district cour t is hereby AF F IRM ED
. FOR THE COURT: CA TH ERI

NE O’ HA GA

N WO L F E, CL ERK