2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-30-2010 

# U SA v . N ol ve r t o M uri llo -P alo s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1191

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . N o lve r t o M

ur i llo -P alos " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1094. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1094NO T PRECEDEN TI AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 1191

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. N O LV ER TO M U RI LLO - PA LO S, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 2- 08- cr - 00095- 001 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Fai t h S. H ochber g

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 29, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2010)

_____ OP I NI ON2

S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . A p p e llan t N o lv e rto M u rillo- P a lo s c h a llen g e s th e se n ten c e h e re c e iv e d f o r h is a d m itte d ro le in a c o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te c o c a in e . I. B ypre- arr ang em ent w i t h “P epit o, ” al so cal l ed “E l Ingenier o, ” M uri l l o-Palos m etA l ej andr o Per ez a ta truck s t op i n B or dent ow n, N ew J er s eyi n A pr i l 2007. Per ez del i ver ed t o hi m t w enty - fi ve ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne thatPer ez ha d t r ans por t ed fr om C al i forni a. Sever al day s l at er , M ur i l l o- Pal os gave Per ez appr oxi m at el y$200, 000 t o be t r ans por t ed bac k t o C al i forni a. A l t hough the Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor t( “PSR ”) cr eat ed byt he Pr obat i on O ffi ce i s uncl earaboutw hatM ur i l l o- Pal os di d w i t h t he drugs aft erhe r ece i ved them, M ur i l l o- Pal os admi t t ed thathe r ece i ved $2, 500 forhi s parti n that tr a n s a c tio n . T he fol l ow i ng m ont h, i n M ay2007, M ur i l l o- Pal os r eturned t o t he s ame t ruck s t op and w as pr epar ed t o r ece i ve tw o bl ack ba gs , one fr om Per ez a nd one fr om anotherm an, t hatcont ai ned a t ot al of fort y - fi ve ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne w hen D rug E nfor cement A dm i ni s t r at i on agent s arr es t ed them. M ur i l l o- Pal os l at eradmi t t ed thathe expe ct ed t o be p a id $ 4 ,5 0 0 f

o r h is ro le in th a t e x c h a n g e . Subse quent l y , M ur i l l o- Pal os pl ed gui l t yt o a one c ounti nform at i on forcons pi r acy to d istrib u te a n d to p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te f iv e k ilo g ra m s o r m o re o f c o c a in e in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) , 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) , and 846. M ur i l l o- Pal os admi t t ed3

d u r i n g h i s p l e a t h a th e p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a c o n s p i r a c ywi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e c o c a i n e . He al s o admi t t ed thathe r ece i ved appr oxi m at el ytw enty - fi ve ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne atthe Ap r i l t r a n s a c t i o n , a n d wa s i n t h e p r o c e s s o f r e c e i v i n g a p p r o x i ma t e l yf o r t y - f i v e k i l o g r a ms o f c o c a in e in M a yw h e n h e w a s a rr e s te d . T he pl ea a gr eementr ecogni zed thatM ur i l l o- Pal os w oul d ar gue thathe qual i fi ed fora tw o- poi ntm i norr ol e r educt i on pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2( b) and thathe qual i fi ed f o r th e sa f

e tyv a lv e in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (f )(1 )-(5 ). M u rillo- P a lo s a lso stip u late d th a t a G ui del i nes r ange r es ul t i ng fr om a gr antordeni al of both t he s afe t yval ve and the mi nor r ol e r educt i on ( bas e off ens e l evel s of ei t hertw enty - s i x orthi r t y - t hr ee) w oul d be re a s o n a b le , a n d th a t h e w o u ld n o t a rg u e f o r a n yf u rt h e r d o w n w a rd d e p a rt u re o r v a ri a n c e . T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted M u rillo- P a lo s s a f e tyv a lv e re lief

, b u t d id n o t g ra n t h im a mi norr ol e r educt i on. U l t i m at el y , t he C our tgave M ur i l l o- Pal os a w i t hi n- G ui del i nes s e n t e n c e o f

1 1 2 mo n t h s i mp r i s o n me n t . M u r i l l o - P a l o s n o w a p p e a l s r a i s i n g two i s s u e s . He ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bynotgr ant i ng the mi norr ol e r educt i on and byfai l i ng to re c o g n ize its a u th o rityto d e v iate b e lo w th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e a n d /o r to e x p lain w h yit chos e nott o do s o. H i s ar gum ent s ar e unper s uas i ve. A d e f e n d a n t is e lig ib le f

o r th e tw o p o in t m in o r ro le r e d u c tio n w h e n h e m e e ts h is bu rden t o sho w t hat hi s “parti n co m m i t t i ng the o ffen se . . . m akes him subst anti al l yl ess cul pabl e than the ave r age pa r t i ci pant . ” U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2( b) cmt . 3( A ) ( 2008) . T he s e n te n c in g c o u rt is a f

f o rd e d b ro a d d is c re tio n in a p p lyin g th is p ro v is io n . See U ni t ed Stat es4

v . Isa za -Za

p a ta , 148 F. 3d 236, 238 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . Fact or s t o be cons i der ed i ncl ude “the natur e of the def

endant ’ s r el at i ons hi p t o otherpart i ci pant s , the i m por t ance of the defe ndant ’ s act i ons t o t he s ucce s s of the ventur e, and the def endant ’ s aw ar enes s of the natur e and s cope of

t he cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Headl ey , 923 F. 2d 1079, 1 0 8 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) (qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). M ur i l l o- Pal os ar gues t hathe w as a mer e drug cour i erw ho “exe r t ed no contr ol or i nfl uence overot her s and had no c ont r ol overthe pr i ce a nd quant i t i es of drugs . ” A pp el l ant’ s B r. at20 . “[E ]ven i f t he ap pell ant w ere accurat e i n clas si fy i ng him sel f as a cour i er , t hatcl as s i fi cat i on i s nota t al i s m an thataut om at i cal l yopens a pathw ayt o a mi nor ro le a d ju s tm e n t” u n d e r § 3 B 1 .2 (b ). U ni t ed Stat es v. Q ui nones - Medi na, 553 F. 3d 19, 23 ( 1s tC i r . 2009) . M ur i l l o- Pal os par t i ci pat ed i n t w o t r ans act i ons thati nvol ved l ar ge amount s of drugs i n w hi ch he w as entrus t ed w i t h atl eas t$200, 000 i n cas h and appr oxi m at el y$1. 4 m i l l i on w or t h of coc ai ne. H e al s o had numer ous t el ephone conver s at i ons w i t h t he appa r entow nerof the drugs and or gani zerof thei rtr ans por tw hi ch

– a lth o u g h sp o k e n in a c o d e th a t M u rillo- P a lo s h im se lf h e lp e d d e v ise – c a n b e re a d to im p lythat M u ri ll o -P alos h ad a larg er ro le i n the d rug tr an sac ti o n s tha n that o f a m ere cour i er . G i ven thes e fa ct s , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on thatM ur i l l o- Pal os di d not d e s e rv e a re d u c tio n a s a m in o r p a rt ic ip a n t w a s n o t c le a r e rr o r. See U nited S tates v. C arr , 2 5 F . 3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (w h ere “d ef en d an t t ak es issu e w ith [a ] distr ictco u rt ’s d e n ial o f a re d u c tio n f

o r b e in g a m in im a l o r m in o r p a rticip a n t w h ich w a s b a se d p rim a rily o n fa ctua l determ ination s, w e re v iew o n lyfo r clear e rror” (c it ati o n s o m itted)).5

M ur i l l o- Pal os al s o ar gues t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our t“neve radequa t el yaddr es s ed w h ethe r, ex erc isi n g it s o w n au tho ri ty , itw o u ld v aryit s sen tenc e b elow the a d v isory gui del i ne r ange, ” and thus “r emand i s . . . nece s s arys o t hatthe C our tcan appl ythe [§ ] 35 5 3 (a) sen tenc ing fa ctors a n d ex p lai n w h ethe r a v arian ce b elow the a d v isory g u idelines ran g e w as w arran ted a n d if n o t th en w h y . ” A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 27 . H o w ev er, di s t r i ctcour t s ar e notal w ay s r equi r ed t o “s t at e byr ot e thatthey. . . know the s ent enci ng gui del i nes ar e now advi s or y ” ort hattheyhave “ expl i ci t l ycons i der ed ea ch of the § 3553( a) fac t or s ort o di s cus s eac h of the § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C har l es , 467 F . 3 d 8 2 8 , 8 3 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). H ere , the D istri ct C o u rt ’s sh o rt expl anat i on of w hyt he s ent ence w as r eas onabl e w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on w hen M ur i l l o- Pal os m ade no a r gum entt hata var i ance w as w arr ant ed and ha d i n fac ts t i pul at ed th a t se n ten c e s in a h ig h e r G u id e lin e s ra n g e th a n th e o n e th a t w a s u lti m a telya p p lied to h im w o u ld b e re a s o n a b le . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d 558, 567 ( 3d C i r . 2009) (e n b a n c ). II. F o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d a b o v e , th is c o u rt w ill a f f ir m th e s e n te n c e .