# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 37 72

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Pab lo Orte ga

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 37 77

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Pab lo Orte ga

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ft. Do dg e

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 21 , 20 17
Fil ed : No ve m

be r 28 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Pab lo Orte ga was se rv in g a te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e whe n he was arre st ed

fo r po ss es si ng m et ha m

ph et am in e wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e. The di strict co ur t rev ok ed 1

hi s s up erv is ed rel eas e an d s en te nc ed hi m to 60 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t for vi ol at in g

th e co nd it io ns of hi s rel eas e. Orte ga pl ead ed gu il ty to po ss es si on wit h in te nt to

di st rib ut e a m ix t u r e o r su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng fiv e gr am s or m or e of act ua l (p ur e)

m et ha m ph et am in e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 1( b) (1 )(B)

, an d was

se nt en ced to eig ht y -s ev en m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

Orte ga ch al le ng es hi s rev oc at io n se nt en ce, arg ui ng th at th e co ur t fai le d to

ex pl ai n it s reas on in g an d im po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le se nt en ce. He arg ue s

th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in cal cu la ti ng th e dr ug qu an ti ty at tri bu ta bl e to hi m an d in

im po si ng G l o b a l Po si ti on in g Sy st em (GPS) m on it or in g as a sp eci al co nd it io n of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e. W e aff irm.

Orte ga was co nv ic te d in 20 01 of po ss es s i o n wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e

m et ha m ph et am in e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A). He was se nt en ced to 18 8

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, fo ll owe d by a fiv e-year te r m of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, whi ch

be ga n t o ru n i n Dec em

be r 20 14

.

In Octo be r 20 15

, th e Uni te d St at es Pro ba ti on Offi ce rece iv ed in fo rm at io n th at

Orte ga was in vo lv ed in il le ga l dr ug act iv it y an d was as so ci at in g wit h fel on s. Bas ed

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, th en Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-on th is in fo rm at io n, of fi ce rs se ar ch ed O rt eg a’ s res id en ce, whe re th ey di sc ov ered “ ic e”

m et ha m ph et am in e, al on g wi th car k ey s re gi st ered to kn own fel on s. 2

The Pro ba ti on Offi ce pe ti ti on ed to rev ok e Orte ga ’s te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

Afte r be in g in di ct ed on th e ab ov e-d es cri be d fed eral of fen se s, Orte ga pl ead ed gu il ty

to po ss es s i o n w it h in te nt to di st rib ut e 35 .28 gr am s of a m ix tu re or su bs ta nc e

co nt ai ni ng fiv e gr am s or m or e of act ua l (p ur e) m et ha m ph et am in e. Lab or at or y

an al y si s of th e m et ha m

ph et am in e de te rm in ed th e su bs ta nc e was be twee n 93 .9% an d

10 0% p ur e.

The di st ric t co ur t he ld a joi nt rev oc at io n an d se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. W it h res pe ct

to th e rev oc at io n, Orte ga ad m it te d th at he ha d fai le d to pa rti ci pa te in ur i n a l ysi s

te st in g, th at he ha d as so ci at ed wit h a fel on or pe rs on en ga ge d in cri m in al act iv it y , th at

he ha d po ss es se d a co nt r o ll ed su bs ta nc e an d th at he ha d co m m it te d th e dr ug -la w
vi ol at io n. Bec au se Orte ga ’s po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e co ns ti tu te d a Grad e

A vi ol at io n, rev oc at io n was m an da to ry

. See U.S.S.G. § 7B 1.3 (a)( 1) (s ta ti ng “ [u ]pon

a fin di ng of a Grad e A or Grad e B vi ol at io n, t h e c o u r t s h al l rev ok e pr ob at io n or

su pe r v i s ed rel eas e”). The go ve rn m en t req ue st ed th e fiv e-year st at ut or y m ax im um

te rm of im

pr is on m en t. See 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e)( 3)

. Defen se co un se l r e qu es te d a

se nt en ce wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s ran ge of 30 to 37 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. As se t fo rth

ab ov e, th e d is tri ct co ur t i m po se d a sen te nc e o f 60 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

W it h res pe ct to th e m et ha m ph et am in e of

fen se , th e p res en te nc e rep or t

reco m m en de d th at el ect ro ni c m on it or in g be im po se d as a co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e an d at tri bu te d 3 3

. 1 3 gr am s of act ua l m et ha m ph et am in e to Orte ga (3 5.2 8

gr am s x 93 .9% = 33 .13 gr am s of act u a l met h a mph et am in e), res ul ti ng in a ba se

“ ‘Ice’ is a pu rer, m or e po te nt fo rm of m et ha m ph et am in e.” Uni te d St at es v. 2

W al ke r, 68 8 F.3 d 41 6, 42 6 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). The Uni t e d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Gu id el in es ) de fin e “ ic e” a s “ a m ix tu re or su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng dm et ha m ph et am in e hydro ch lo rid e of at l eas t 8 0% p ur it y .” U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c) n.C.

-3

-of

fen se le ve l of 26

. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c )(7 ) (at le as t twen ty gr am s bu t le ss th an

th irt y -fi ve gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e (act u a l ) )

. The go ve rn m en t ob jecte d to th is

cal cu la ti on , a r g u i ng th at fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es th e dr ug qu an ti ty us ed sh ou ld be

35 .28 gr am s of “ ic e” m et ha m ph et am in e, eq ua ti ng to a ba se of fen se le ve l of 28

. See

U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c )(6 ) (at le as t th irt y -fi ve gr am s bu t le ss th an fif ty gr am s of “ ic e”).

Orte ga ag reed wit h th e Pro ba ti on Offi ce’s dr ug qu an ti ty cal cu la ti on , bu t arg ue d th at

he sh ou ld no t be pl aced on el ect ro ni c m on it or in g du rin g hi s te rm of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e.

A Pro ba ti on Offi cer te st ifi ed th at Orte ga ha d writ te n two le tt ers th at rev eal ed

th e id en ti ty of a co nf

id en ti al i n f

or m an t who ha d in cri m in at ed Orte ga

. The di st ric t

co ur t reject ed th e go ve rn m en t’s arg um en t th at Orte ga ’s di sc lo su re of th e in fo rm an t’s

id en ti ty co ns ti tu te d an ob st ru ct io n of jus t i c e a n d th us di d no t ap pl y th e req ue st ed

of fen se -le ve l en ha nc em en t.

The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Orte ga ’s ba se of fen se le ve l was 28 ba se d on

th e to ta l gr am s of “ ic e” m et ha m ph et am in e. Afte r red uc in g th e ba se of fen se le ve l by

th ree fo r Orte ga ’s acce pt an ce of re sponsi bi li ty, se e U.S.S.G. § 2E1 .1, th e di st ric t co ur t

fo un d th at Orte ga ’s to ta l of fen se le ve l was 25

, res ul ti ng in an ad vi so ry G u i de li ne s

se nt en ci ng ran ge of 7 0 t o 8 7 m on th s.

Th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Orte ga to 87 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, to ru n

co ns ecu ti ve ly to th e rev oc at io n se nt en ce. The co ur t al so im po se d a fiv e-year te rm of

su pe rv i se d rel eas e, whi ch in cl ud ed GPS m on it or in g as a sp eci al co nd it io n. In

reac hi ng th is de ci si on , th e di st r ic t co ur t co ns id ered Orte ga ’s ag e, ed uc at io n,
de pe nd en ts

, li m it ed em

pl oym en t, an d th e ei gh te en di sc ip li na ry rep o r t s O r te ga ha d

rece iv ed whi le in carc erat ed

. It fo un d Orte ga to be a reci di vi st dr ug de al er, no ti ng th at

he no w ha d two fed eral c o n v i c t i on s fo r dr ug di st rib ut io n. The co ur t fu rth er fo un d

th at Orte ga ’s two le tt ers “ ba si cal ly ou t[e d] an in fo rm an t an d p o t e n t i al ly in vi t[e d]

ret al ia ti on ag ai ns t he r.” It al so to ok in to acco un t th e rep or te d th reat to a fed eral jud ge

-4

-in th e un de rlyin g cas e in whi ch Orte ga was su b je c t e d to GPS m on it or in g whi le on

su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

Rev oc at io n S en te nc e

Orte ga co n t e n d s th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r by fai li ng

to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n it s reas on in g fo r th e rev oc at io n se nt en ce. “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t

co ur t’s rev oc at io n se nt en ci ng de ci si on s us in g th e sa m e st an da rd s th at we ap pl y to

in it ia l se nt en ci ng de ci si on s.” Uni te d St at es v. Mi ll er, 55 7 F.3 d 91 0, 91 5- 16 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Co tt on , 39 9 F.3 d 91 3, 91 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )). “ A di st ric t

co ur t is no t req ui red to m ak e sp eci fic fin di ng s; al l th at is ge ne ral ly req ui red to sa ti sf y
th e ap pe ll at e co ur t is ev id en ce t h a t t h e di st ric t co ur t was aware of th e rel ev an t

fact or s.” Uni t e d S t a t e s v

. Perk in s, 52 6 F.3 d 11 07

, 11 10 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W he n it s

se nt en ce va rie s fro m th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ra n g e , we gi ve “ du e de fere nc e to th e
di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on th at th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, on a who le

, jus ti fy th e ex te nt of th e

va ria nc e.” Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 (20 07 ).

Giv en Orte ga ’s fai lu re to ob ject to th e di st ric t co ur t’s al l e g ed ly in ad eq ua te

ex pl an at io n of it s reas on s fo r th e rev oc at i o n s e n t e nc e, we rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r.

Mi ll er, 5 5 7 F

. 3d at 91 6. In ad di ti on to th e earl ie r se t-f or th co nd it io ns , th e di st ric t

co ur t no te d th at Orte ga ha d ha d on e di sc ip li na ry rep or t whi le st ay in g at a res id en ti al

f a c i l i t y cen te r. The co ur t wen t on to ex pl ai n th at “ [a]fter co ns id eri ng th e 35 53 (a )

fact or s of Tit le 18 th at ap pl y in a rev oc at io n si tu at io n , t h i s i s a se rio us vi ol at io n of

tru st

, a se rio us ne w la w vi ol at io n. Cl earl y , Mr. Orte ga is at a hi gh ris k to reci di va te .”

It ul ti m at el y co nc l u d ed th at GPS m on it or in g wou ld no t “ in vo lv e an y gr eat er
de pr iv at io n of li be rty th an ne ces sa ry to affo rd de te rren ce an d pr ot ect th e pu bl ic .” It

is cl ear fro m th es e co m

m en ts th at th e di st ric t co ur t was aware of an d co ns id ered th e
rel ev an t se nt en ci ng fact or s an d th at it th us co m m it te d no erro r, pl ai n or ot he rwis e, in

va ry in g fr om

th e ad vi so ry

Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e.

-5

-Orte ga ’s arg um en t th at hi s rev oc at io n sen te nc e is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

be cau se it is gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry t o s a t i s f y th e se nt en ci ng go al s of 18 U.S.C. §

35 53 (a) fai ls in li gh t of hi s m ul ti pl e vi ol at io ns of hi s co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e,

hi s ne w dr ug di st ri b u t i o n of fen se , hi s hi gh ris k of reci di vi sm , an d hi s hi st or y of

no nc om pl ia nc e.

Dru g Qu an ti ty

Orte ga co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de te rm in in g th at h i s ba se of fen se
le ve l was 28

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e Gui de li ne s de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Mi ll er, 51 1 F.3 d 82 1, 82 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). “ The di st ric t co ur t’s dr ug

qu an ti ty an d id en ti ty de te rm in at io ns are fact ua l fin di ng s, whi ch we rev ie w ‘for cl ear

erro r, ap pl y in g th e pr ep on de ran ce-o f-t he -e v i d en ce st an da rd .’ ” Uni te d St at es v.

W al ke r, 68 8 F.3 d 41 6, 42 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Turn er, 60 3 F.3 d

46 8, 4 71 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) ).

The Gui de li ne s pe rm it two di ffe r e n t m et ho ds fo r de te rm in in g a de fen da nt ’s

ba se of fen se le ve l in cas es in vo lv in g m et ha m ph et am in e. Uni te d St at es v. Fai rch il d,

18 9 F.3 d 76 9, 77 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ); se e Uni te d St at es v. Garci a-Pa na m a, 43 2 F. App ’x

64 1, 64 3 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (u np u b l i s h e d ) (p er cu ria m ). The go ve rn m en t m ay

pe rfo rm a pu rit y de te rm in at io n by m ul t i p l yi n g th e pe rcen ta ge of pu re

m et ha m ph et am in e by t h e t o t a l am ou nt of th e m ix tu re to ge t th e “ act ua l” am ou nt of

m et ha m ph et am in e. Uni te d St at es v. Hou st on , 33 8 F.3 d 87 6, 87 9 (8 th C i r

. 20 03 ).

Alt ern at iv el y , th e go ve rn m en t is al lo wed to ap pl y th e en ti re weig ht of an y m ix tu re or

su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng a de te ct ab le am ou nt of m et ha m ph et am in e. Fai rch il d, 18 9 F.3 d

at 77 8- 79 ; se e al so U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1 n.A. St at ed di ffer en tl y , un de r th e se c on d

m et ho d, “ ‘dru g qu an ti ty un de r th e gu id el in es in cl ud es th e en ti re weig ht or vo lu m e of

an y m ix tu re co nt ai ni ng a de te ct ab le am ou nt of co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e wit ho ut reg ard

to pu rit y or co nc en tra ti on .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Ram os , 81 4 F

. 3 d 9 10

, 92 0 (8 th Ci r.

20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Un i t e d St at es v. St ewart , 7 61 F.3 d 99 3, 10 01 (9 th Ci r. 20 14 )). The

-6

-Gui de li ne s in st ru ct th e di st ric t co ur t to us e whi ch ev er m et ho d pr od uc es a hi gh er ba se

of fen se lev el . U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(a ); s ee Garc ia -Pan am a, 43 2 F . App ’x at 6 43 n.2

.

Orte ga co nc ed es th at th e 35 .28 gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e fo un d at hi s

res id en ce was 93 .9% pu re. The m ix tu re th eref or e fal ls un de r th e Gui de li ne s
de fin it io n of “ ic e.” See U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c ) n.C

. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t was

req ui red to ch oo se to eit he r ap pl y th e act ua l weig ht of th e m et ha m ph et am in e fo un d

at Orte ga ’s res id en ce or th e weig ht of th e en ti re “ ic e” su bs ta nc e or m ix tu re,
de pe nd in g on whi ch de te rm in at io n wou ld pr od uc e a hi gh e r ba se of fen se le ve l.

Bec au se th e 35 .28 gr am s of “ ic e” es ta bl is he d a ba s e d o f f e n s e le ve l of 28 an d th e

33 .13 gr am s of act ua l m et ha m ph et am in e es ta bl is he d a ba se of fen se le ve l of 26 , t he

di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y ch os e to us e th e en ti re weig ht of th e “ ic e” m et ha m ph et am in e

m ix tu re i n d et erm in in g t he dru g q ua nt it y

.

Elec tro ni c Mo ni to rin g

Orte ga fir st arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t p ro ced ur al ly erred by rely in g o n t he

co nt es te d fact th at Orte ga ha d th reat en ed a fed eral di st ric t co ur t jud ge

. Ass um in g th at

Orte ga ha s pr es erv ed th is cl ai m of erro r, we co nc lu de th at it is wit ho ut m eri t. As we
read th e reco rd

, th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e no sp eci fic fin di ng th at su ch a th reat ha d be en

m ad e, sa y in g on ly th at “[w ]e h a v e to ke ep in m in d th at th ere was a th reat rep or te d

a ga in st [th e jud ge ] in th e un de rlyin g cas e th at y ou were on su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r.”

Orte ga al te rn at iv el y arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in

im po si ng GPS m on it or in g a s a s p e ci al co nd it io n of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. He

co nt en ds th at wit ho ut ev id en ce th at he ha d at te m pt ed to act on an y th reat s, GPS

m on it or in g is no t ne ces sa ry an d th at an y sa fet y co nc ern s co ul d ha ve be en ad dr es se d
by inc lu di ng a “ no co nt act ” co nd it io n.

The d i s t ric t co ur t ha s “ wid e di sc ret io n in im po si ng su pe rv is ed rel eas e

co nd it io ns .” Uni te d St at es v. Jo rg e-Sa lg ad o, 52 0 F.3 d 84 0, 8 4 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )

-7

-(in te rn al ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Co nd it io ns im po se d by th e di st ric t co ur t, ho wev er, m us t

be reas on ab ly rel at ed to th e se nt en ci ng fact or s set fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), and

“ in vo lv e[] n o g r eat er de pr iv at io n of li be rty th an is reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry ” fo r th e

pu rp os es id en ti fie d in § 35 53 (a)

. 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 ( d ) (2 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v.

Ri ng ge nb erg , 49 4 F. App ’x 68 5, 68 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (u np ub li sh ed ) (p er cu ria m ).

Rel ev an t fact or s th at th e co ur t m ay co ns id er are th e hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs of th e
de fen da nt an d th e pr ot ect io n of the pu bl ic fro m fur th er cr im es of t he de fen da nt

. 18
U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (a)( 2) (C).

In li gh t of Orte ga ’s ab ov e-re co un te d hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs , we co nc lu de

t h a t t h e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in im po si ng GPS m on it or in g a s a

co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Giv en th at hi st or y an d t ho se ch arac te ris ti cs , it was

reas on ab le fo r th e co ur t to do ub t whe th er O r t e g a w o u l d co m pl y wit h a no co nt act

o r de r an d to co nc lu de th at th e req ui rem en t of GPS m on it or in g was ne c e s s a r y t o

en su re t he saf

et y of o th ers

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-