# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 24 81

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Mar vi n Do na ld o C he hu en Lop ez

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 24 97

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Ro ny Eleaza r Gue rra- Gua la
, al so kn own as R on y

Eli azar Guer ra-Gu al a, al so kn own as Al ex

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: Decem be r 14 , 20 12 Fil ed : Fe br ua ry

7, 2 01 3 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Mar vi n D ona ldo Ch eh

ue n L ope z an d Ro ny E le az ar Gue rra- Gua la (co ll ect iv el y , D e f e nd an ts ) pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e an d to po ss es s wit h in t e n t to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or m or e of a 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 an d a 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 co cai n e , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A), (b )(1 )(C)
, an d 84 6. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Ch eh ue n Lop ez an d Gue rra- Gua la 1

to 12 0 an d 19 2 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, res pe ct iv el y

. Defen d a n t s a p pe al th ei r

se nt en ces , arg ui ng th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e di st ric t co ur t’s

ap pl ic at io n of ag gr av at in g

- ro le en ha nc em en ts un de r Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Gu id el in es ) § 3B 1.1

. Gue rra- Gua la al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d i n c al cu la ti ng th e d ru g q ua nt it y att rib ut ab le to hi m . W e aff irm.

I. Back gr ou nd

In 20 09
, la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers rece iv ed in fo rm at io n th at Defen da nt s were d i s t r i bu ti ng m et ha m

ph et am in e in St

. Pau l, Mi nn es ot a. The of fic ers ’ in ve st ig at io n

co nf irmed th at Defen da nt s an d se ve ral ot he r in di vi du al s were di st ri b u t i n g la rg e

am ou nt s o f m et ha m

ph et am in e an d s om e co cai ne

.

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard H. Ky le
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-Defen da nt s pl ead ed gu il ty wit ho ut a pl ea ag reem en t aft er a gr an d jury in di ct ed

th em an d el ev en ot he r co co ns pi rat or s. At hi s ch an ge of pl ea he ari ng , Ch eh ue n Lop ez ad m it te d th at fro m May 20 09 to ap pr ox im at el y Sep te m be r 20 10 he act ed as a ru nn er f o r t h e co ns pi racy by de li ve rin g co cai ne an d m et ha m ph et am in e to cu st om ers i n Mi nn es ot a. He st at ed th at he de li ve red aro un d th ree po un ds of m et ha m ph et am in e pe r week du rin g th e co ns pi racy, bu t th at , to ward s th e en d, th is am ou nt dr op pe d to ab ou t

a po un d pe r week

. W he n ch an gi ng hi s pl ea, Gue rra- Gua la st at ed th at hi s ro le in th e

co ns pi racy was to ta ke or de rs fro m cu st om ers ov er th e ph on e an d se nd a ru nn er to de li ve r th e dr ug s an d co ll e c t t h e cu st om er’s m on ey

. Gue rra- Gua la sa id th at he

en ga ge d i n t hi s ac ti vi ty nearl y ev ery da y

.

T he U ni te d St at es Pro ba ti on Offi ce’s pr esen te nc e re por ts (P SR s) re co m

m en de d th at Ch eh ue n Lop ez rece iv e a th ree- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r be in g a man a g e r or

su pe rv is or of th e co ns pi racy an d th at Gue rra- Gua la rece iv e a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r be in g a n o r g a ni zer or le ad er of th e co ns pi racy. The PSRs at tri bu te d at le as t 15 ki lo gr am s of m et ha m

ph et am in e to Defen da nt s

. D e fen da nt s ob jecte d to th e
ag gr av at in g ro le en ha nc em en ts , an d Gue rra- Gua la ob je c t e d to th e PSR’s dr ug
qu an ti ty calcu la ti on

.

The di st ric t co u r t h e ld a joi nt ev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e ob jecti on s, du rin g whi ch it he ard te st im on y fro m Dep ut y Ch ris Frei ch el s, th e pr im ary cas e ag en t, an d
J a s o n Le bl on de
, a co co ns pi rat or who ha d pu rch as ed m et ha m ph et am in e fro m Defen da nt s.

Frei ch el s te st ifi ed in de ta il reg ard in g th e r o l e s t ha t Defen da nt s pl ay ed in th e

co ns pi racy. Pri or to 20 07
, Gue rra- Gua la ’s co us in
, Yur is
, ran a dr ug di st rib u t io n
op erat io n in Mi nn es ot a. Gue rra- Gua la wor ke d in th e op erat io n as a co nt act pe rs on , ta ki ng or de rs fro m cu st om ers ov er the ph on e an d d is pa tc hi ng run ne rs to de li ve r th e dr ug s an d co ll ect th e cu st om er’s m on ey

. Acco rd in g to Frei ch el s, Gue rra- Gua la

as su m ed co nt ro l ov er al l as pe ct s of t h e o p e r a t i o n whe n Yur is le ft fo r Gua te m al a in

-3

-20 07

. W ire ta ps of Gue rra- Gua la ’s ph on es rev eal ed th at he wou ld or de r dr ug s fro m

hi s so ur ce an d ha ve th em sh ip pe d to Mi nn es ot a. W he n a sh ip m en t arri ve d, Gue rraGua la wou ld di rect a co co ns pi rat or , who he ld th e dr u g pr oc eed s fo r Gue rra- Gua la
, to ha ve th e pu rch as e mo n e y a v a i la bl e an d to de li ve r th e m on ey to a cert ai n pl ace. Frei ch el s al so ov erh eard G u e r r a

- G ua la se tt in g th e pr ic e fo r th e dr ug s, te ll in g hi s

co co ns pi rat or s wh ere t o s to re t he dru gs , and ord eri ng th em to sec ur e cu tt in g a ge nt s
to di lu te th e d ru gs be fo re re pa ck ag in g t he m

.

Towar ds th e en d of the co ns pi racy, Frei ch el s ov erh eard Gue rra- Gua la sa y in g th at he was go in g to ret ur n to hi s na ti ve Gua te m a l a a n d th at he pl an ne d to pl ace Ch eh ue n Lop ez an d an ot h e r i n d i v i d ua l in ch arg e of th e co ns pi racy i n hi s ab se nc e. Ch eh ue n Lop ez was to ha nd le th e dr ug pr oc eed s an d as su m e Gue rra- Gua la ’s po si ti on

as th e co ns pi racy’ s co nt act pe rs on

. Ch eh ue n Lop ez be cam e th e co ns pi racy’ s co nt act
pe rs o n i n S ep te m

be r 20 10
, whe n he be ga n ta ki ng or de rs fro m cu st om ers an d di sp at ch in g a ru nn er to de li ve r th e dr ug s. Leb lo nd e te st ifi ed th at in th e su m m er of
20 10
, he en co un te red Ch eh ue n Lop ez an d an ot he r m em be r of th e co ns pi racy m ak in g

a de li ve ry at so m eo ne ’s ho us e. Leb lo nd e be li ev ed th at Ch eh ue n Lop ez was tra in in g th e co co ns pi rat or to be a ru nn er.

Bo th Frei ch el s an d Leb lo nd e te st ifi ed ab ou t th e am ou nt of m et ha m ph et am in e in vo lv ed in th e co n s p ira cy

. Frei ch el s reco un te d st at em en ts by se ve ral na m ed

co co ns pi rat or s co nc ern in g t h e am ou nt of m et ha m ph et am in e th ey pu rch as ed fro m Defen da nts. A ddi tio na lly
, he es ti m at ed cert ai n am ou nt s of m et ha m ph et am in e th at th e

co co ns pi rat or s pu rch as ed fro m Defen da nt s. W he n to ta le d, th es e am ou nt s co ns ti tu te d well ov er 40 ki lo gr am s. Le bl on de te st ifi ed th at du rin g th e su m m er of 20 08 he

pu rch as ed be twee n a po un d and a po un d a nd a ha lf of m et ha m ph et am in e fiv e ti m es

a week

. The reaf

t e r , Leb lo nd e’s pu rch as e of m et ha m ph et am in e dr op pe d to
ap pr ox im at el y

an ou nc e o r two pe r week

.

-4

-At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t o v e rru le d Ch eh ue n Lop ez’s an d Gue rraGua la ’s ob

jecti on s t o t he PSRs an d i m po se d t he earl ie r-d es cri be d s en te nc es

.

II. Dis cu ss io n

W e rev ie w th e d is tri ct co ur t’s co ns tru ct io n an d ap pl ic at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Aug us ti ne , 66 3 F.3 d 36 7, 37 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). W e rev ie w fo r cl ear erro r th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s reg ard in g th e ag g r a v a t in g ro le

en ha nc em en ts an d th e dr

ug qua nti ty de te rm inat io n, ap pl y in g th e pr ep on de ran ce of th e

ev id en ce st an da rd

. Uni te s St at es v. Gam bo a, 70 1 F.3 d 26 5, 26 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ro le in of fen se ); 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 ) (d ru g qu an ti ty de te rm in at io n)

.

A. Agg rav at in g R ol e Enh an cem en ts

As rel ev an t to th is cas e, Gui de li ne s § 3B 1.1 au th or iz es two en ha nc em en ts fo r

a de fen da nt ’s ro le in cri m in a l a c t i v i ty in vo lv in g at le as t fiv e pa rti ci pa nt s. See
U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (a), (b ). A de fen da nt who is an “ or ga ni zer or le ad er” of th e cri m in al

act iv it y is su bjec t to a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t. U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (a). A “ m an ag er or

su pe rv is or (b ut no t an or ga ni zer or le ad er)” of th e cr i mi n a l act iv it y is su bjec t to a th ree- le ve l en ha nc em en t. U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(b ).

Defen da nt s do no t arg ue th at th e co ns pi r acy in vo lv ed fewer th an fiv e
pa rti ci pa nt s. In st ead , th ey di sp ut e th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ch arac te riz at io n o f th ei r ro le s in th e co ns pi racy. A nu m be r of fact or s are ta ke n in to acco un t whe n d e t e r mi n i n g a de fen da nt ’s rol e in th e o ffen se :

[T]he ex erci se of de ci si on m ak in g au th or it y , th e na tu re of pa rti ci pa ti on in th e co m

m is si o n o f t h e of

fen se , th e recr ui tm en t of acco m pl ic es , th e cl ai med r i g h t to a la rg er sh are of th e fru it s of th e cri m e, th e de gr ee of

-5

-pa rti ci pa ti on in pl an ni ng or or ga ni zi ng th e of fen se , th e na tu re an d sc op e of th e il le ga l act iv it y , an d th e de gr ee of co nt ro l an d au th or it y ex erci se d

ov er o th ers

. U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1 cm t. n .4.

1. Gue rra- Gua la

Gue rra- Gua la arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e di st ric t

co ur t’s fin di ng th at he was an “ or ga ni zer” or “ le ad er” of th e co ns pi racy un de r Gui de li ne s § 3B 1.1 (a). He co nt en ds th at h e w a s s i mp ly a co nt act pe rs on fo r th e

co ns pi racy an d th at Yur is was act ua ll y in ch arg e. The ev i d e n c e a t th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng sh owe d th at Gue rra- Gua la pu rch as ed dr ug s fo r th e co ns pi rac y, de te rm in ed th e pr ic e at whi ch th es e dr ug s were so ld
, an d di rect ed hi s co co ns pi rat or s co nc ern in g th e man ag em en t of th e dr ug pr oc eed s, th e st or ag e an d pr oc es si ng of th e dr ug s, an d th e de li ve ry of th e dr ug s to cu st om ers . F rei ch el s t es ti fie d t ha t “ [i]t was alwa y s M r. Gua la th at was di rect in g ev eryone

. No on e to ld hi m wha t t o d o

. ” Tr. 30

. In de ed
, whe n Gue rra- Gua la de ci de d to ret ur n t o G u at em al a, he de te rm in ed who hi s

su cces so rs wou ld be an d wh at rol es th ey wou ld pl ay

in th e co ns pi racy. Co ns tru in g th e te rm s “ or ga ni zer” an d “ le ad er” br oa dl y , Uni te d St at es v. Mo li na -Per ez, 59 5 F.3 d
85 4, 86 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err by im po si ng an en ha nc em en t u nd er Gu id el in es § 3 B1 .1(a ).

2. Ch eh ue n Lo pe z

Ch eh ue n Lop ez argu es th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g th e th ree- le ve l

“ m an ag er” or “ su pe rv is or ” en ha nc em en t be cau se hi s ro le in th e co ns pi racy was th at of a m ere “ di sp at ch er.” “ [W] e h av e de fin ed th e te rm s ‘m an ag er’ an d ‘sup erv is or ’

qu it e li be ral ly, ho ld in g th at a de fen da nt can be su bjec t to th is en ha nc em en t fo r ha vi ng

m an ag ed or su pe rv is ed on ly on e ot he r pa rti ci pa nt in th e cri m in al co ns pi racy.” Uni te d
St at es v. Lop ez, 43 1 F.3 d 31 3, 31 7- 18 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Add it io na ll y , th e

-6

-en ha nc em en t “ ‘m ay ap pl y ev en if th e m an ag em en t act iv it y was li m it ed to a si ng le

tra ns act io n.’” Id . a t 31 8 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Zim m er, 29 9 F.3 d 7 10 , 7 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 )).

It is un di sp ut ed th at Ch eh ue n Lop ez be ga n act in g as th e co nt act pe rs on fo r th e

co ns pi racy in Sep te m

be r 20 10

. As th e co nt act pe rs on , Ch eh u e n Lo pe z wou ld ta ke

or de rs fro m cu st om ers an d ne go ti at e th e pl ace of de li ve ry

. He wou ld th en di rect th e

co ns pi racy’ s ru nn er, wh om , acco rd in g t o Leb lo nd e, Ch eh ue n Lop ez ha d tra in ed , t o de li ve r th e dr ug s an d co ll ect th e m on ey fro m th e cu st om er. Giv en th is ev id en ce, th e di st r i c t co ur t’s fin di ng th at Ch eh ue n Lop ez was a m an ag er or su pe rv is or was no t cl earl y erro ne ou s. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Col e, 65 7 F .3d 68 5, 6 87 -8 8 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ) (u ph ol di ng en ha nc em en t whe re de fen da nt “ tra ns po rte d/ an d or di rect ed th e tra ns po rta ti on ” of dr ug s an d di rect ed a co co ns pi rat or to dr iv e hi m fro m ci ty to ci ty
to de li ve r dr ug s) ; Lop ez, 43 1 F

. 3 d at 31 6- 18 (u ph ol di ng en ha nc em en t whe re de fen da nt ask ed hi s ro om m at e to “ se rv e as a lo ok ou t o n o ne oc cas io n” ).

B. Drug Quan ti ty

Gue rra- Gua la arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e di st ric t

co ur t’s dr ug qu an ti ty d e t e r mi n a t io n. “ Thi s co ur t wil l ov ert ur n a fin di ng of dr ug
qu an ti ty on ly if th e en ti re reco rd de fin it iv el y an d fir m ly co nv in ces us th at a m is ta ke ha s be en m ad e.” Uni te d St at es v. You ng , 68 9 F.3 d 94 1, 94 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ci ta ti on

om it te d)

. “ W he n cal cu la ti ng dr ug qu an ti ty in th e co nt ex t of a na rco ti cs tra ffi ck in g

co ns pi racy, th e se nt en ci ng co ur t m ay co ns id er al l tra ns act io ns kn own or reas on ab ly fo res eeab le to th e de fen da nt th at were m ad e in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy.” Uni te d
St at es v. Pl an cart e-Vaz qu ez, 4 50 F.3d 84 8, 8 52 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

Th e d i st ric t co ur t’s dr ug qu an ti ty de te rm in at io n was no t cl earl y erro ne ou s. Frei ch el s de sc rib ed a co ns pi racy th at so ld m or e t h a n 40 ki lo gr am s of

m et ha m ph et am in e. Leb lo nd e co rro b o rat ed th is te st im on y by st at in g th at he ha d

-7

-pu rch as ed be twee n a po un d and a po un d a nd a ha lf of m et ha m ph et am in e fiv e ti m es

a week du rin g th e su m

m er of 20 08

. Fu rth er, Ch eh ue n Lop ez st at ed th at he de li ve red

2
be twee n on e to th ree po un ds of m et ha m ph et am in e pe r week d u r in g hi s ti m e as a

ru nn er fo r th e co ns pi racy.

Gue rra- Gua la ob

jects to th e di st ric t co ur t’s rel ia nc e on th is ev id en ce, arg ui ng th at th e st at em en ts of Leb lo nd e an d hi s co co n s p ira to rs were no t rel ia bl e. “ Bu t ‘[a] rg um en ts ab ou t th e rel ia bi li ty of a wit ne ss are in real it y an at ta ck on th e cred ib il it y of th at tes ti m on y , and wit ne ss cred ib il it y is an is su e fo r th e se nt en ci ng jud ge th at is vi rtu al ly un rev ie wab le on ap pe al .’ ” W al ke r, 68 8 F.3 d at 42 2 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. Sara bi a-M art in ez, 27 6 F.3 d 44 7, 45 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 )). W e se e no ba si s to co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t cou rt cle arl y erre d by fin di ng Frei ch el s an d Leb lo nd e cred ib le

. The

ev id en ce th us was su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at Gue rra- Gua la

was res po ns ib le for at l eas t 1 5 k il og ram s o f m et ha m ph et am in e.

III.

The sen te nc es are af

fir m ed

.

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

Gue rra- Gua la ’s br ie f po in ts ou t in a fo ot no te th at hi s sa le of m et ha m phe tam in e 2
to Leb lo nd e du rin g th e su m m er of 20 08 oc cu rred p r i o r t o t h e in it ia l da te of th e
co ns pi racy al le ge d in th e in di ct m en t. W he n de te rm in in g dr ug qu an ti ty, ho wev er, th e di st ric t co ur t m ay co ns id er al l dr ug s “ th at were pa rt of th e sa m e co ur se of co nd uc t or
co m m on sc he m e or pl an as th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on .” U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.3 (a)( 2)

. The

ev id en ce s ho wed th at th e co ns pi racy beg an well be fo re t he Apri l 2 00 9 dat e al le ge d in th e in di ct m en t, an d bo th Leb lo nd e an d Frei ch el s t es ti fie d t ha t Gu erra -Gu al a was in te gr al ly in vo lv ed in th e co ns pi racy’ s sa le of m et ha m ph et am in e to Leb lo nd e in th e
su m m er of 20 08

. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t ap pr op ria te ly co ns id ered G ue rra- Gua la ’s

sa le of m et ha m

ph et am in e to Leb lo nd e du rin g th is ti m e pe rio d whe n m ak in g it s dr ug qu an ti ty det erm in at io n.

-8

-