2003 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 9-22-2003 

# U S A v . P ol a nco P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2585

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . P o l a nc o " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 265. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/265NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT No: 02-2585 UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. AGUIL E POLA NCO, a/ k/ a CHAMACO, a/ k/a W I LL I AM, Aguile Polanc o, Appellant On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania D.C. C riminal No . 01-cr-0003 1-2 Distri ct Judge: Hon. Eduardo C. Robreno Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

September 15, 2003 Be for e: M cK ee, S mith & Co we n, Circuit Judges (Fil ed September 22, 2003 ) OPINI ON OF THE COURT M cK ee, Circuit

Judge Aquile Polanc o appeals t he sentenc e the di stri ct court imposed foll owing his pl ea of g uilty to num erou s cha rges a rising f rom his inv olvem ent in a cons piracy to d istribute
coc ai ne, her oi n an d cr ack coc ai ne. For

th e r eas ons th atfol lo w, we wil l a ffi rm. Inasmuch as we are wri ting onl y for the part ies who are fami liar

with the f

actual and procedura l background of this case, we need not

reiterate the fact s except a s may be2

helpful to our brief di scussi on. Polanc o argues that the dist rict court er red in s entenci ng him m ore severely than his eq ually culpable fem ale partner and the district court’s sentenci ng theref

ore constituted sex dis crimination i n violat ion of the equal protecti on component of the Fi fth Amendment. We disagree. The district c ourt di sagreed wit h Polanco’s atte mpt to char acterize hi mself and code fend ant B urgo s as eq ual pa rtners w ith equ al culp ability and in disting uisha ble sentencing factors. Although the di stri ct court conceded that

Burgos and Polanco were partner s, the court noted that

it was Pol anco who had access t o the sour ce of supply and who
con trolle d th e oth er p erso ns in vol ved in th e co nsp iracy, in clud ing cod efe nda nt B urg os. Th e co urt st ated , “this ma n is a t the t op. . . e ver ybod y else w ork ed f or h im.” Ap p. 13 6. The court noted that

the codefendant

“was an administ

rati ve leader

here, but

not sort of a chief execut

ive offi cer. That ’s Mr. Polanco.” Id . at 151. Because of Pol anco’s posi tion at thetop of the conspir acy and his acce ss to t he ill egal drugs that t

he conspir acy was selling, the court con cluded tha t the conspiracy cou ld not have existed w ithout him. It may, ho we ver, ha ve be en ab le to ex ist with out B urgo s. Pola nco “ wa s a ke y to this conspir acy. [Burgos] was pret ty helpful , but maybe fungibl e.” Defense couns el did not disagr ee with that ass essment. On the contrary , counselindicated his agreement wit h the court’ s factua l concl usion duri ng the sentencing proc edures. Moreover, even now counsel does not seriousl y ar gue that the court

erred i n its conclusi on.3

Inasmuch as t

he court’ s conclus ions adequatelysupporte d the dif ference i n the sentence s of Polanco and c odefendant Burgos , and si nce that factualdistincti on was not clearly erroneous , it

is cl ear that Polanco’ s belated att empt to hang an appe al on the
cons titutional h ook of the Fifth A men dm ent is w ithout m erit. Ac cord ingly, we will aff irm. TO THE COURT: Please fi le theforegoing opi nion. By the C ourt,

Circuit Judge4