# 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- 44 65

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.
Edg ar Ed ward Gon zal ez

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 20 , 20 17 Fil ed : Fe br ua ry

1, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d GOLDBERG, Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

In Apr il 20 15
, Edg ar Edwar d Gon zal ez arra n ge d fo r Fl or en ci o Mo li na

Gon zal ez, Ju an Carl os Can de la
, Eve lyn Meji a, an d Alfo ns o Ay al a, to tra ns po rt

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard W

. Go l db erg , Uni te d St at es Co ur t of In te rn at io na l 1 Trad e, si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.ap pr ox im at el y twen t y -two po un ds of m et ha m ph et am in e fro m Ph oe ni x, Ariz on a, to Mi nn eap ol is
, Mi nn es ot a. Po li ce in te rcep te d an d arre st ed th e d r u g co ur ie rs ne ar Alb ert Lea, Mi nn es ot a. Su bs eq ue nt po li ce in ve st ig at io n le d th e Fed eral Bu reau of
In ve st ig at io n (F BI) t o Go nz al ez.

Gon zal ez pl ead ed gu il ty to co ns pi ra c y 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( a)(1 ), 84 1( b) (1 )(C)
, an d 84 6, an d was se nt en ced to 20 2

m on th s’ im

pr is onm ent. Gon zal ez ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t 2

erre d in ap pl y in g cert ai n en ha nc em en ts un de r th e Uni te d S t a te s Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Gu id el in es or U.S.S.G.) an d i mp o s ed a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

se nt en ce. We affir m

.

Gon zal ez arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g a 2- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r us in g a da ng ero us weap o n u n d e r Gui de li ne s § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ) be cau se no fir earm

was ev er fo un d. Und er Gui de li ne s § 2 D 1

. 1( b) (2 ) cm t. n.1 1( A), th e da ng ero us
weap on en ha nc em en t “ sh ou ld be a p p l ie d if th e weap on was pr es en t, un le ss it is cl earl y im

pr ob ab le th a t th e weap on was co nn ect ed wit h th e of fen se .” Dur in g th e

se nt en ci ng he ar ing
, an FB I ag en t te st ifi ed ab ou t hi s co nv ers at io ns wit h co -co ns pi rat or Ay al a an d Gon zal ez’s as so ci at e Jo el San do va l, in whi ch Ay al a sa id th at Gon zal ez ha d gi ve n hi m a 9 m

m Si g Sau er han dg un to gu ard m et ha m ph et am in e th at was st or ed at

a ho us e in Ariz on a. San do va l to ld th e ag en t th at Gon zal ez own ed a .38 cal ib er se m iau to m at ic pi st ol an d a .45 cal ib er se m i-a ut om at ic pi st ol

. Dur in g a se arch of th e two Mi nn es ot a res id en ces th at Gon zal ez us ed to pr oc es s t h e m et ha m ph et am in e, la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic ers di sc ov ered a gu n cl ean in g k i t , a bo x of 9 m m am m un it io n, a
gu n m ag azi ne wit h 9 m

m ro un ds
, an d a Si g Sau er han dg un cas e. The F BI o bt ai ne d

a Face bo ok pi ct ur e o f Gon zal ez— ta ke n d ur in g t he da te s al le ge d i n t he su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t— th at de pi ct ed hi m wit h a se m i-a ut om at ic pi st ol tu ck ed in to hi s be lt

. The

The Hon or ab le Don ov an W

. Fran k, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co u rt fo r th e 2 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.
-2

-ph y si cal ev id en ce an d th e st at em en ts by the co -c onsp ir ator s es ta bl is he d th at Gon zal ez

po ss es se d at le as t on e fir earm du rin g th e c o n s p i r a c y an d th at it was no t cl earl y im pr ob ab le th at th e fi rear m

was c on ne ct ed to th e m et ha m ph et am in e co ns pi racy.

Gon zal ez al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g th e “ st as h ho us e”

en ha nc em en t by no t ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai ni ng th e ba si s fo r it s d eci si on

. A de fen da nt

rece iv es a 2- le v e l en ha nc em en t un de r Gui de li ne s § 2D1 .1(b )(1 2) if he “ m ai nt ai ne d

a pr em is es fo r th e pu rp os e of m an uf act ur in g or di st rib ut in g a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e.” The Gui de li ne s ex pl ai n th at “ [m ]anu fact ur in g or di st rib ut in g a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e

ne ed no t be th e so le pu rp os e fo r whi ch th e pr em is es was m ai nt ai ne d, bu t m us t be on e of th e d efen da nt ’s pri m ary or pri nc ip al us es for th e p rem is es , r at he r th an on e o f th e de fen da nt ’s in ci de nt al or co ll at eral u s e s f o r th e pr em is es .” U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1 cm t. n.1 7. The Gui de li ne s in st ru ct th e di st ri c t c o u r t to “ co ns id er ho w freq ue nt ly th e
pr em is es was us ed by th e de fen da nt fo r m an uf act ur i n g o r di st rib ut in g a co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e an d ho w freq ue nt ly th e pr em i se s was us ed by th e de fen da nt fo r la wfu l

pu rp os es .” Id

. The FBI ag en t te st ifi ed du rin g th e se nt e n c i ng he ari ng th at th e co

co ns pi rat or s co nf

irmed th at Gon zal ez us ed two res id en ces in Mi nn eap ol is to rece iv e,
st or e , p a c k ag e, an d di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e. The ag en t fu rth er te st ifi ed th at Gon zal ez st ay ed at on e of th e res id en ces on ly “ whe n th e dr ug lo ad s c a me i n.” W e

co nc lu de th at al th ou gh th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at io n fo r it s de ci si on m igh t well ha ve be en m or e th or ou gh , i t was en ti tl ed to rel y on th e fo reg o i n g t e s ti m on y in im po si ng th e en ha nc em en t an d t ha t n o fu rth er ex pl an at io n was req ui red

.

Nex t, Gon zal ez ch al le ng es a 3- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r m an ag in g or su pe rv is in g cri m in al act iv it y un de r Gui de li ne s § 3B 1.1 (b ). Gon zal e z arg ue s th at be cau se co

co ns pi rat or an d co -d efen da nt San do va l di d no t rece iv e su ch an en ha nc em en t fo r hi s

ro le in th e of

fen se , Gon zal ez li ke wis e sh ou ld no t ha ve rece iv ed it

. Dur in g th e

se nt en ci ng he ari ng , ho wev er, th e FBI ag en t te st ifi ed th at Gon zal ez “ ha d co nt ro l ov er San do va l” an d th at Gon zal ez was in ch arg e of th e en ti re op erat io n. The di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d th at whi le San do va l was m or e cu lp ab le th an th e de fen da nt s ot he r th an

-3

-Gon zal ez, i t fou nd th at Gon zal ez’s rol e in th e co ns pi racy was ev en m or e ex te ns iv e,

whi ch co ns ti tu te d a le gi ti m at e di st in ct io n be twee n th e two , an d th us no un warra nt ed di sp ari ty resu lt ed

.

Gon zal ez fu rth er arg ue s t h a t t he di st ric t co ur t’s se nt en ci ng de ci si on was affe ct ed by ps y ch ol og ic al bi as , po in ti ng to th e di st ric t co ur t’s ob se rv at io n th at th e co

co ns pi rat or s in th is cas e were “ m or e te rri fie d an d sc ared th an m os t t ha t I ha ve se en whe n th ey were te st ifyin g on wha t m ig ht ha pp en to th em .” Gon zal ez al le ge s th at th is

st at em en t fin ds no su pp or t in th e reco rd an d th us refl ect s a su bjec ti vi ty ag ai ns t whi ch th ere is no way to de fen d. Gon zal ez de sc rib es th e di st ric t co ur t as ha vi ng “ en ga ge d in wha t is refe rred to in th e so ci al s c i e n c e li te rat ur e as ‘j ud gm en t by

rep res en ta ti ve ne ss ,’ a ph ras e co in ed by non e o th er t ha n Dan ie l Kah ne m an & Am os Tve rs ky” in th ei r art ic le “ On th e Rea li ty o f Co gn it iv e Ill us io ns ,” 10 3 Ps y ch ol og y Rev ie w 58 2, 58 2 (1 99 6)

. Gon zal ez arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s as su m pt io n of th e fe ar ca use d by G onz al ez ’ s co nduc t— a “ re pr es en ta ti ve ne ss ” in Gon zal ez’s vie w —m ay well ha ve be en cau se d by ot he r reas on s, e.g ., in -co ur t ne rv ou sn es s or em ba rras sm en t. Thi s is an in te res ti ng , th ou gh t-p ro vo ki ng arg um en t, bu t it do es no t carr y th e da y , fo r ul ti m at el y a di st ric t co ur t’s ev al ua ti on of a wit ne ss ’s em ot io na l st at e, whe th er

ex pr es se d by wor ds
, ph y si cal co nd uc t, o r de m ean or , sh ou ld be gi ve n th e sa m e de fere nc e th at we gi ve t o i t s d et erm in at io ns of a wit ne ss ’s cred ib il it y

. See Uni te d
S t a t e s v

. Ms hi hi ri, 81 6 F.3 d 99 7, 10 04 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (s ta ti ng in th e co nt ex t of a

su pp res si on m ot io n th at “ [t]he di st ric t co ur t

. . . ha s a di st in ct ad va nt ag e in ev al ua ti ng th e c r e d ib il it y of wit ne ss es , an d it s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns are vi rtu al ly

un rev ie wab le on ap pe al ”) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Vin to n, 6 31 F.3d 47 6, 48 1 (8t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). Thi s is no t to sa y , of co ur se , th at al l jud ge s, tri al an d ap pe ll at e al ik e, sh ou ld no t st riv e to se t as id e pr eco nc ep ti o n s,

un warra nt ed ass um

pt io ns , and th e li ke in pe rfo rm in g t he ir r es pe ct iv e ro le s.

Last ly, Gon zal ez ar gue s tha t his se nte nc e is subs ta

nti ve ly un reas on ab le be cau se th e m et ha m

ph et am in e Gui de li n e s l a ck an em pi ric al ba si s. Gon zal ez arg ue s th at a

-4

-di st ric t co ur t i s n o t req ui red to im po se Gui de li ne s ran ge se nt en ces whe n it ha s a
po li cy di sa gr eem en t wit h th e Gui de li ne s, ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hay es , 94 8 F. Su pp

. 2d 10 09
, 10 14 (N.D. Io wa 20 13 ) (ci ti ng Sp ears v. Uni te d St at es , 55 5 U.S. 26 1, 26 3-
67 (2 00 9) (

pe r cu ri am ); Kim

br ou gh v. Uni te d St at es , 5 52 U.S. 8 5
, 10 9- 10 (2 00 7) ).
True en ou gh
, bu t as we ha ve ex pl ai ne d, “ whi le a di st ric t co ur t m ay ch oo se to de vi at e fro m th e gu id el in es be cau se of a po li cy di sa gr eem en t, a di st ric t co ur t is no t req ui red

to do so .” Uni te d St at es v. Man ni ng , 73 8 F.3 d 93 7, 94 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 4 ) ( in te rn al ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Giv en th e ex te ns iv e na tu re of Gon zal e z ’s in vo lv em en t an d hi s man a g e m en t ro le in th is dr ug di st rib ut io n co ns pi racy, we

co nc lu de th at hi s b el ow- Gui de li ne s s en te nc e is no t s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le

.

The sen te nc e is affi rm ed

.

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

-5

-