## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 0- 37 97

__ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

*

v. *

* Je su s Fa be l Di az-P el le ga ud , als o k no wn *

as Fael , als o k no wn as Fab el
, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om th e Uni te d S ta te s Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e No. 1 0- 38 28 Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

*

v. *

* Jo se Garci a, al so kn own as M ay a, al so * kn own as M oya, *

* App el la nt

. *__

__ __ __ __ _
No. 1 0- 38 30

__ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

*

v. *

* Jo se Enri qu e Bu rg os -Val de z, al so * kn own as J os e Enr iq ue Bu rg os , als o * kn own as F eri ch e, al so kn own as * Feru ch i, al so kn own as Art ur o, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 10 02

__ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

*

v. *

* Ben jam in Mel en de z-Ro ch a, al so kn own *

as Ro be rto Barr on , als o k no wn as * Ena no , als o k no wn as Nano , als o * kn own as S et a, *

* App el la nt

. *

- 2

-__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 20 , 20 11 Fi le d: Ja nu ary 25 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re MELLOY, BEAM, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Je su s F a be l Diaz -Pel le ga ud
, Jo se Garci a, Jo se Enri qu e Bu rg os -Val de z, an d
Ben jam in Mel en de z-Ro ch a ap pe al th ei r co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces o n va rio us
gr ou nd s. Fo r th e reas on s s e t ou t be lo w, we affi rm th e co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces im po se d b y th e d is tri ct co ur t. 1

I. BACKGRO UND

Thi s cas e st em s fro m a m u l ti -y ear in ve st ig at io n in to an in te rs ta te an d
int er na tio na l dr

ug sm ug gl in g an d di st rib ut io n or ga ni zat ion

. T he G ove rn m en t as se rt ed

at tri al th at Diaz -Pel le ga ud arra ng ed fo r th e sm ug gl in g of met h a m

ph et am in e an d

m ari juan a fro m Mex ic o to th e Uni te d St at es an d su pe rv is ed th e di st rib ut io n of th es e dr ug s in lo cal es in cl ud in g Ph oe ni x, Ariz on a, an d Si ou x Fal ls
, So ut h Dak ot a. Garci a
pr ov id ed “ m

us cl e” for the or ga ni zat io n and tra ve le d no rth fro m Mex ic o as part of a
te am of en fo rcer s to as si st dr ug de al e r s i n S i o u x Fal ls wit h de bt co ll ect io n effo rts

. Bu rg os -Val de z was in vo lv ed in th e tra ns po rta ti on an d sm ug gl in g of dr ug s fo r th e

or ga ni zat io n. Mel en de z-Ro ch a was in vo lv ed in m et ha m p h e t a mine an d m ari

juan a di st rib ut io n in Ph oe ni x an d el se whe re an d he lp ed la un de r m on ey fo r th e or ga ni zat io n

as well

.

The Hon or ab le Lawren ce L. Pi ers ol
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

.

- 3

-The in ve st ig at io n be ga n wit h a tra ffi c st op in New Mex ic o o n J ul y 12 , 2 00 7,

du rin g whi ch Bu rg os -Val de z an d two ot he rs were fo un d to be tra ns po rti ng m or e th an th ree ki lo gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e an d a lo ad ed .45 cal ib er ha n d g u n in th ei r car whi le dr iv in g fro m Ph oe ni x to Si ou x Fal ls

. Doc um e n t s s e i z e d du rin g th is st op le d

po li ce to in ve st ig at e a ho us e at 51 2 Nor th Men lo Ave nu e in S i o u x F al ls

. On Apr il 1, 20 08
, act in g pu rs ua nt to a se arch warra nt , po li ce se arch ed th e Men lo Av e n ue ho us e, se iz in g ov er a ki lo gr am of m et ha m ph et am in e, cas h, an d a si gn ifi can t am ou nt of pa pe rwo rk rel at ed to dr ug di st rib ut io n, in cl ud in g le dg ers an d “ owe sh eet s.”
Sh or tl y th erea fte r, po li ce arre st ed th e o w n e r o f t he Men lo Ave nu e ho us e, Dari o Verd ug o- Gala vi z, on e of th e ke y pl ay ers in th e or ga ni zat io n’s di st rib ut io n op erat io n in bo th Ph oe ni x a nd Sio ux Fal ls

.

On Feb ru ary 20
, 20 09
, po li ce si m ul ta ne ou sl y ex ecu te d a nu m be r of se arch

warra nt s on ho us es wit h ti es to th e or ga ni zat io n, in cl ud in g on e be lo ng in g to Fi de l

“ Pel on ” Vil la ne uv a-Go di ne z, an im po rta nt fig ur e in th e Si ou x Fal ls di st rib ut io n
op erat io n. At Pel on ’s ho us e, of fic ers fo un d cas h an d al m os t ha lf a ki lo gr am of

m et ha m ph et am in e. In fo rm at io n gl ean ed fro m th e se arch es al so en ab le d th e

su bs eq ue nt in te rcep ti on of a dr ug sh ip m en t bo un d fo r Si ou x Fal ls co nt ai ni ng ov er a ki lo gr am of m et ha m

ph et am in e an d ap pr ox im at el y fif ty po un ds of m ari

juan a. On Ju ly 1, 20 09
, Diaz -Pel le ga ud was arre st ed in Id ah o in a pi ck up tru ck co nt ai ni ng
ap pr ox im at el y

16 0 p ou nd s o f m ari

juan a.

A gr an d jury in di ct ed twen ty-sev en in di vi du al s in co nn ect io n wi t h th is
in ve st ig at io n. Twe n t y- on e pl ed gu il ty, an d a m ajor it y of th es e co op erat ed wit h th e

au th or it ie s. The rem ai ni ng si x— Mi c h e l l e M un oz , who was wit h Bu rg os -Val de z whe n he was arre st ed
, Man ue l Ram ire z, who was wit h Diaz -Pel le ga ud whe n he was

arre st ed
, an d th e fo ur ap pe ll an ts

— p le d no t gu il ty an d pr oc eed ed to tri al

. Afte r an ei gh t da y tri al
, th e jury acq ui tt ed Mu no z an d co nv ic te d al l fo ur ap pe ll an ts an d
Ram ire z of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or m or e of a su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng

- 4

-m et ha m

ph et am in e; Diaz -Pel le ga ud
, Garci a, an d Ram ire z of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 10 0 ki lo gr am s or m or e of a su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng m ari juan a; an d Diaz -Pel le ga ud an d
Mel en de z-Ro ch a of co ns pi racy to la un de r m on ey

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Diaz

Pel le ga ud to 36 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, Garci a t o 15 1 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t,
Bu rg os -Val de z to 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, an d Mel en de z-Ro ch a to 34 8 m on th s’
im pr is on m en t. All fou r ti m el y ap pe al

. 2

II

. DISCUSS IO N

On ap pe al
, Diaz -Pel le ga ud arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce in tro du ced at tri al was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t h i s co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy to co m m it m on ey la un de rin g

an d fo r co ns pi racy t o d is tri bu te m et ha m ph et am in e an d m ari

juan a. Garci a si m il arl y ch a l l e n ge s th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce fo r hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m et ha m

ph et am in e an d m ari

juan a an d als o con te nd s th at th e d is tri ct co ur t ab us ed it s di sc r et io n by fai li ng to ad jus t hi s se nt en ci ng gu id el in es of fen se le ve l
do wnwar d on th e ba si s of m in or or m in im al pa rti ci pa nt st at us

. He fu rth er arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. Bu rg os -V al de z ch al le nge s the su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce fo r hi s co nv ic ti on of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e an d
cl ai m s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. Mel en de z-Ro c h a c o n te nd s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al on th e ba s i s of

st at em en ts by a co -d efen da nt ’s a tt or ne y th at al le ge dl y vi ol at ed a pr et ria l or de r, an d
he arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

.

A. Diaz -Pel le ga ud

1. Evi de nt ia ry Su

ff ic ie nc y: Mo ne y La un de ri ng

W e co ns id er ch al le ng es to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e e vi de nc e to su pp or t a

co nv ic ti on de no vo bu t con si de r th e ev id en ce pr es en te d “ in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le

Ram ire z was se nt en ced to 16 2 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t and di d no t app eal hi s 2

co nv ic ti on s o r se nt en ce.

- 5

-to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi ng co nf li ct s in th e go ve rn m en t’s fav or , a n d acce pt in g al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es th at su pp or t th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. Y ar ri ng to n , 63 4 F.3 d
44 0, 44 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Sc of ie ld
, 43 3 F.3 d 58 0, 58 4- 85 (8 th
Ci r. 20 06 )). Rev ers al fo r ev id en ti ary in su ffi ci en cy is on ly warra nt ed whe n, ba se d on th e ev id en ce be fo re it
, “ no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d St at es v. Esp in os a , 58 5 F.3 d 41 8, 42 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Th omp so n , 53 3 F .3d 96 4, 9 70 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) ).

Diaz -Pel le ga ud was co nv ic te d at tri al of co ns pi rin g to la un de r m on ey in
vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 19 56 (h ). “ Co ns pi rin g to la un de r m on ey

. . . req ui res th at th e de fen da nt ‘agree d wit h an ot he r pe rs on to vi ol at e th e su bs ta nt iv e pr o v is io ns of th e

m on ey -la un de rin g st at ut e.’” Uni te d St at es v. Heid
, 65 1 F.3 d 85 0, 85 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hyn es , 46 7 F.3 d 95 1, 96 4 (6 th Ci r. 20 06 )). The su bs ta nt iv e

m on ey la un de rin g pr ov is io n th at Diaz -Pel le ga ud was co nv ic te d of ha vi ng co ns pi red

to vi ol at e ha s fo ur el em en ts : (1 ) th at th e de fen da nt co nd uc te d or at te m pt ed to co nd uc t

a fin an ci al tra ns act i o n th at affe ct ed in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m m erce ; (2 ) th at th e fin an ci al tra ns act io n in vo lv ed pr op ert y rep res en ti ng th e pr oc eed s of il le ga l act iv it y ; (3 ) t h a t th e de fen da nt kn ew th at th e pr op ert y rep res en te d th e pr oc eed s of il le ga l

act iv it y ; an d (4 ) th at th e de fen da nt co nd uc te d th e fin an ci al tra ns act io n kn owi ng th at th e tra ns act io n was in te nd ed to pr om ot e th e carr y in g on of il le ga l act iv it y

. 18 U.S.C. § 1 9 5 6 ( a)(1 )(A)(i ); se e Uni te d St at es v. Sl ag g , 65 1 F.3 d 83 2, 84 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ).
Ban k acco un t de po si ts co un t as fin an ci al tra ns act io ns fo r th e pu rp os es of th e m on ey la u n d e r i n g st at ut e. 18 U.S.C. § 19 56 (c)( 3)

. Fo r ex am pl e, in Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n , 61 9 F.3 d 91 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), we u p h e l d a pr om ot io n- of -il le ga l-a ct iv it y

m on ey la un de rin g co nv ic ti on ba se d on th e de fen da nt ’s d e p o s i t s of th e pr oc eed s of

m et ha m ph et am in e sa le s in to a ba nk acco un t co nt ro ll ed by a co -co ns pi rat or

. Id

. at 91 9- 20

.

- 6

-Diaz -Pel le ga ud a r g u es th at th e Gov ern m en t di d no t in tro du ce an y ev id en ce

co nn ect in g hi m to an y fin an ci al tra ns act io ns an d th at al l th e Gov ern m en t sh owe d was th at he read “ a se rie s of nu m be rs whi ch co rrel at ed t o We l l s Farg o ba nk acco un ts ”

ov er th e ph on e to a co -co ns pi rat or , Dari o Verd ug o- Gala vi z. He al so arg ue s th at th ere is li tt le to co rro bo rat e th e tr ia l t es ti m on y of Ve rd ug o- Gala vi z.

Verd ug o- Gala vi z te st ifi ed th at bo th he an d a fel lo w dr ug de al er na m ed Carl os Cl em en te “ Cam arg o” Pere z-Pa nt al eo n ha d dep os it ed m on ey fro m th ei r Si ou x Fal ls
dr ug di st rib ut io n op erat io n in to ba nk acco un ts de si gn at ed by Diaz -Pel le ga ud in or de r
to pa y hi m fo r dr ug s. As th e pa y m en ts co nt in ue d, dr ug s co nt in ue d to arri ve in Si ou x Fal ls

. Evi de nc e fro m o t he r co op erat in g wit ne ss es es ta bl is he d th at m on ey fro m th e

a c co un ts was la te r wit hd rawn in Ph oe ni x. The jury was en ti tl ed to cred i t s u c h

t e s t i mo n y. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Boy ce , 5 64 F.3 d 91 1, 91 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (h ol di ng th at a f a c t

- fin de r’s de te rm in at io n as to th e cred ib il it y of a wit ne ss is vi rtu al ly

un rev ie wab le on ap pe al ).

V i e w i n g al l th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e Gov ern m en t a n d

acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es , Y ar ri ng to n , 63 4 F.3 d at 44 9, a r e a so na bl e jury

co ul d fin d th at Diaz -Pel le ga ud ag reed wit h Verd ug o- Gala vi z an d Cam arg o th at th ey

wou ld de po si t th e pr oc eed s fro m th ei r dr ug sa le s in to hi s ba nk acco un ts to pa y Diaz

Pel le ga ud f

o r t h e dr ug s he was su pp lying an d to en su re th ei r co nt in ue d su pp ly of
dr ug s. Giv en th at th ei r de po si ts wou ld be vi ol at io ns of § 19 56 (a)( 1) (A)(i ), Jo hn so n , 61 9 F .3d at 91 9- 20
, th is ag reem en t wou ld be su ffi ci en t to su pp or t t he co nv ic ti on of
Diaz -Pel le ga ud fo r co ns pi racy un de r § 19 56 (h ). The refo re, we affi rm th is co nv ic ti on

.

2. Evi de nt ia ry Su

ff ic ie nc y: Met ha mph et ami ne an d Ma ri ju an a

Diaz -Pel le ga ud ne xt ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce fo r hi s

co nvi ct ion s fo r co nspir in g to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e an d conspi ri ng to dis tr ibu te

- 7

-m ari

juan a, bo th in vi ol at io n o f 2 1 U

. S

. C

. § 84 6. “ To es ta bl is h th at a de fen da nt

co ns pi red to di st rib ut e dr ug s un de r 21 U.S.C. § 84 6, th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e: (1 )
th at th ere was a co ns pi racy, i.e., an a g r e e ment to di st rib ut e th e dr ug s; (2 ) th at th e de fen da nt kn ew of th e co ns pi racy; an d (3 ) th at th e de fen da nt in te nt io na ll y joi ne d th e

co ns pi racy.” Uni te d St at es v. Ji min ez , 48 7 F.3 d 11 40
, 11 46 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Es

pi no , 31 7 F .3d 78 8, 7 92 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3) ).

Deta il ed ev id en ce su pp or ts th es e co nv ic ti on s. Verd ug o- Gala vi z te st ifi ed a t tri al th at Diaz -Pel le ga ud ap pr oa ch ed hi m in Ph oe ni x, pr op os in g th at he se ll dr ug s fo r hi m an d recr

ui t ot he rs to do th e sa m e. Verd ug o- Gala vi z st at ed th at he ag reed to th is

pr op os al an d th en su cces sf ully re cr uit ed oth er s to dis tr ibu te and pe rs on al ly di st rib ut ed
bo th m et ha m

ph et am in e an d m ari

juan a th at he rece iv ed f r o m Diaz -Pel le ga ud

. Verd u go -Gal av iz de sc rib ed ho w he
, Diaz -Pel le ga ud
, an d ot he rs wou ld un lo ad

m et ha m ph et am in e an d m ari

juan a fro m hi dd en co m

pa rtments in frei gh t tra in s in
lo cat io ns in cl ud in g Farg o, Nor th Dak ot a, an d Sal t Lak e Ci ty, Utah

. He al so ex pl ai ne d
ho w, wor ki ng wit h ot he rs , he be ga n t o d i s t r i bu te Diaz -Pel le ga ud ’s dr ug s in Si ou x F al ls
, So ut h Dak ot a. Oth er dr ug de al ers co rro bo rat ed th is acco un t of D i a z

Pel le ga ud ’s cen tra l ro le in bo th th e sm ug gl in g an d di st rib ut io n of dr ug s. Onc e ag ai n, th e jury’ s de te rm in at io ns of wit ne ss cred ib i l i t y are “ vi rtu al ly un rev ie wab le on

a p p e a l

. ” Boy ce , 56 4 F.3 d at 91 6 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Gomez -Per ez , 45 2 F.3 d
73 9, 74 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). Diaz -Pel le ga ud ’s al ia s “ Fael ” a l s o was fo un d in a dr ug le dg er fo un d at th e Men lo Ave nu e ho us e, an d he pe rs on al ly was arre st ed in a pi ck up
tru ck co nt ai ni ng ap pr ox im at el y 16 0 p ou nd s o f m ari juan a. The e vi de nc e p res en te d,

co ns id ered “ in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi ng co nf li ct s in th e
go ve rn m en t’s fav or , an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at su pp or t th e ve rd ic t,”
Y ar ri ng to n , 6 34 F.3 d at 44 9, was eas il y s u f f i c i en t to su pp or t th e jury’ s co nv ic ti on s

on bo th co ns pi racy cou nt s. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th es e co nv ic ti on s.

- 8

-B. Ga rci a

1. Evi de nt ia ry Su

ff ic ie nc y

Garci a was co nv ic te d at tri al of co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e an d

co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e m ari juan a, bo th in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 6. On ap pe al
, he arg ue s th at no reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th at he ha d fo rm ed th e r e q u i s i t e i nt en t

to joi n th e co ns pi raci es or t ha t he ha d kn own of th ei r res pe ct iv e pu rp os es , bo th

ne ces sa ry el em en ts of th es e co nv ic ti on s. Se e Ji min ez , 48 7 F.3 d at 11 46

. His

act iv it ie s rel at ed to th e co ns pi raci es were, in hi s vi ew, “ m ere pr es en ce” an d no t act ua l
in vo lv em en t, an d th eref

o re th e ev id en ce pr es en te d ag ai ns t hi m was in su ffi ci en t to

su st ai n hi s co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on s. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Fit z , 31 7 F.3 d 87 8, 88 2 (8 th
Ci r. 20 03 ).

Co ns tru ed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, Y ar ri ng to n , 63 4 F.3 d

at 44 9, wit ne ss te st im on y in th is cas e es ta bl is he d far mo r e th an Garci a’s m ere
pr es en ce. Eli as Lech ug a te st ifi ed th at Garci a tra ve le d to Si ou x Fal ls wit h hi m an d

ot he r m en who ha d be en recr ui te d by Cam arg o to co ll ect de bt s owe d on pa st sa le s of

m ari juan a an d m et ha m

p h e t am in e. A dr ug de al er na m ed Ken ny Cl ark te st ifi ed th at Garci a p ers on al ly con fro nt ed hi m ov er h is ou ts ta nd in g de bt s an d d em an de d t ha t h e
pa y th e m on ey he owe d. Mar io Ro dr ig ue z, an ot he r dr ug de al er who owe d Cam arg o

m on ey fo r dr ug s, te st ifi ed th at Garci a was pa rt of a gr ou p of m en th at be at hi m up , al th ou gh he was no t su re th at Garci a hi m se lf ha d act ua ll y st ru ck hi m

. G a r ci a al so

acco m pa ni ed Ro dr ig ue z on an ex te nd ed dr iv e to Mex ic o whe re Ro dr ig ue z’s
de li nq ue nc ie s were to be res ol ve d a nd whi le in Mex ic o sp ie d on an ot he r m an who

owe d m on ey to Verd ug o- Gala vi z. Fu rth e r mo re, whi le in Si ou x Fal ls
, a Fo rd Exp ed it io n was ti tl ed in Garci a’s na m e, an d Garci a la te r le ft th e ve hi cl e in Ph oe ni x. The re was su bs ta nt ia l te st im on y pr es en te d th at , in ot he r in st an ces , ve hi cl es ha d be en de po si te d i n P ho en ix as p ay m en t t o m em be rs of t he co ns pi raci es for dru g d eb ts

.

- 9

-Garci a ad m it te d th at he ha d tra ve le d to Si ou x Fal ls to co ll ect de bt s bu t de ni ed

th at he ha d kn own th e de bt s were dr ug -rel at ed

. Thi s co nt en ti on is be li ed by th e fact
th at , whi le in Si ou x Fal ls
, he st ay ed at th e Men lo Ave nu e ho us e th at was a ke y fo cal

po in t of th e Si ou x Fal ls dr ug ne two rk

. W hi le bo th El i a s Le ch ug a an d Garci a’s
br ot he r Je su s te st ifi ed th at Garci a ha d no t be en aware of th e d r u g

- r e la te d na tu re of
th ei r act iv it ie s, th ey al so te st ifi ed th at th ey ha d co m e to Si ou x Fal ls sp eci fic al ly to

co ll ect dr ug de bt s. It wou ld no t ha ve be en un reas on ab le fo r th e jury to co nc lu de th at bo th th e te st im on y of Garci a ’s in no cen t st at e of m in d an d Garci a’s own cl ai m s of
in no cen ce were in cred ib le

. Se e Uni te d S t a t es v. Lo ng Fea th er , 29 9 F.3 d 91 5, 91 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ [T]he jury was well wit hi n it s rig ht s to di sr eg ard [th e de fen da nt ’s]

se lf- se rv in g t es ti m on y

in fav or of t he tes ti m on y

of o th er wi tn es se s.”)

.

Garci a co rrec tl y po in ts ou t th at pr ev io us cas es in whi ch dr ug d e al ers ’ de bt

co ll ect or s ha ve be en co nv ic te d fo r co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e dr ug s ha ve in vo lv ed a
gr eat er de gr ee of ov erl ap be twee n di st rib ut io n an d en fo rcem en t act iv it ie s. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Cl ay , 57 9 F.3 d 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ); Uni te d St at es v. Lo pe z , 44 3 F.3 d
10 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (en ba nc ). Howev er,“ [w]e m us t up ho ld th e ve rd ic t if th ere is an in te rp ret at io n of th e ev id en ce th at wou ld al lo w a reas on ab le -m in de d jury to fin d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d St at es v. W ai nr ig ht
, 35 1 F.3d
81 6, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). The ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri a l was su ffi ci en t fo r a

reas on ab le jury to fin d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at Garci a ha d co m e to Si ou x Fal ls wit h a te am of fel lo w e nf or cers sp eci fic al ly t o co l l e c t dr ug de bt s on be ha lf of
th e dr ug di st rib ut io n op erat io n, sa ti sf y in g th e in te nt an d kn owl ed ge req ui rem en ts of
hi s co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on s. Se e Ji min ez , 48 7 F.3 d at 11 46

. The refo re, we affi rm hi s

co nv ic ti on s.

- 1 0

-2. S en te nc in g

The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Garci a at th e bo tt om of hi s a d vi so ry se nt en ci ng
g u i d e l i n es ran ge , 15 1 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t on each co ns pi racy co un t wit h th e

se nt en ces to ru n c o nc ur ren tl y

. “ W e rev ie w th e reas on ab le ne ss of de fen da nt s’

se nt en ces un de r a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd
, en su rin g th at th e di st ric t

co ur t co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r an d th at th e se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Reyn ol ds
, 64 3 F.3 d 11 30
, 11 34 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 5 52 U.S. 3 8, 41 (2 00 7) ). Garci a arg ue d at se nt en ci n g fo r hi s
gu id el in es of

fen se le ve l to be red uc ed by fo ur or two le ve ls be cau se he ha d be en on ly

a “ m in im al ” or “ m in or ” pa rti ci pa nt in th e co ns pi racy. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2

. He bo re th e bu rd en of pr oo f to sh ow th at h e was en ti tl ed to su ch a red uc ti on

. Se e Uni te d
St at es v. Dea ns , 59 0 F.3 d 90 7, 90 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). The di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d
Garci a’s arg um en t th at hi s in vo lv em en t wit h th e co ns pi racy ha d no t la st ed lo ng an d
th at he ha d kn own le ss ab ou t th e fu ll ex te nt of th e c o n s p i r a c y th an ot he rs , bu t th e

co ur t ne ve rth el es s fo un d th at th e r o l e he pl ay ed ha d no t be en m in or or m in im al

. Exp la in in g it s de ci si on , th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed th at “ co m in g u p he re fro m Mex ic o
sp eci fic al ly to co ll ect dr ug de bt

. . . mea n s th at ev en th ou gh y ou r in vo lv em en t is
li m it ed ti m e wis e, y ou are p la y in g no t on ly a m ajor ro le bu t a p art ic ul arl y off en si ve

ro le .” “ W e rev ie w fo r cl ear erro r a di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng as to a de fen da nt ’s ro le in
th e of fen se un de r se ct io n 3B 1.2 .” Uni te d St at es v. Sw een ey , 61 1 F.3 d 45 9, 47 6 (8 th
Ci r. 20 10 ). Giv en th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al an d Garci a’s ro le in th e co ns pi racy, “t h e tri al co ur t’s fin di ng do es no t le av e us wit h a ‘defi ni te an d fir m co nv ic ti on th a t

a m is ta ke ha s be en co m

m it te d.’” Uni te d St at es v. Ort iz , 23 6 F.3 d 42 0, 42 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. West er man , 9 73 F.2 d 14 22 , 1 42 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 )).
W e th eref

or e do no t fin d cl ear erro r in t h e d i s t r i ct co ur t’s de ci si on to de ny Garci a

m in im al or m in or pa rti ci pa nt st at us un de r § 3 B1 .2.

- 1 1

-Garci a al so arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le in li gh t of

t he se nt en ci ng fact or s in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). W he n as se ss in g su bs ta nt iv e

reas on ab le ne ss , we c on si de r th e to ta li ty o f th e ci rcu m st an ces at s en te nc in g, an d we

rev ie w fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n on ly. Gal l
, 55 2 U.S. at 51

. “ If the se nt en ce im po se d
is wit hi n th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge , th is co ur t ‘m ay , bu t is no t req ui red to , ap pl y

a pr es um pt io n of reas on ab le ne ss .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Delg ad o- Her na nd ez , 64 6 F.3d
56 2, 56 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (p er cu ria m ) (q uo ti ng Gal l
, 55 2 U.S. at 51 ). “ A se nt en ce is

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le if th e di st ric t co ur t fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t wei gh t, gi ve s si gn ifi can t wei gh t t o a n i m pr op er o r irr el ev an t fact or , or co ns id ers on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t com m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v

. L o z o ya , 62 3
F.3 d 6 24 , 62 6 (8 th Cir . 20 10 )).

Garci a co nt en ds th at a nu m be r o f hi s co -co ns pi rat or s, m an y of who m pl ay ed

ve ry si gn ifi can t ro le s in th e or ga ni zat io n, rece iv ed le ss se ve re se nt e n c e s

. He

m en ti on s in pa rti cu la r Ke n n y Cl ark
, Mar io Ro dr ig ue z, Eli as Lech ug a, an d Je su s Ech ev erri a-Pi ne da

. All of th es e m en , th ou gh
, pl ed gu il ty, co op erat e d wit h th e in ve st ig at io n, an d te st ifi ed fo r th e G o ve rn m en t at tri al

. The y are th us no t tru ly
si m il arl y si tu at ed to Garci a wit hi n th e m ean in g of 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 6)

. Se e Uni te d
St at es v. Bow ie , 61 8 F.3 d 80 2, 81 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), cer t. de ni ed
, 56 2 U.S. ---, 13 1 S.
Ct

. 95 4 (2 01 1)

. Garci a al s o co nt en ds th at hi s la ck of a pr io r cri m in al hi st or y , an d
wha t he arg ue s is a res ul ta nt la ck of a ne ed to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic fro m po te nt ia l fu tu re cri m es , m il it at ed in fav or of a le ss er se nt en ce. The se nt en ci ng co ur t co ns id ered th is
fact or , th ou gh
, an d it ci te d hi s cl ean reco rd
, hi s y ou th
, an d hi s “ po te nt ia l” as th e

reas on s fo r pr on ou nc in g a se nt en ce at the lo w en d of th e gu id el in es ran ge

. Ove ral l,
i t is cl ear fro m th e tra ns cri pt of th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng th at th e di st ric t c o u r t

co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s as req ui red , and Garci a p oi nt s t o no ba si s for us to fin d a n a bu se of d is cret io n with in th e m ean in g o f Gal l . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm hi s
pr es um pt iv el y reas on ab le gu id el in es sen te nc e.

- 1 2

-C. Burg os -Va ld ez

1. Evi de nt ia ry Su

ff ic ie nc y

Bu rg os -Val de z was co nv ic te d at tri al of co ns pi rin g 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 6. On ap pe al
, he arg ue s th at th e

ev id en ce pr es en te d ag ai ns t hi m was le ga ll y in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on “ in
li gh t of th e in cred i bl e te st im on y [o f th e Gov ern m en t’s] wit ne ss es an d [th e] la ck of ph y si cal ev id en ce tying [h im ] to th e co ns pi racy.” Bu rg os -Val de z was a pa ss en ge r in

a ve hi cl e th at was pu ll ed ov er by po li ce fo r a ro ut in e tra ffi c st op

. Po li ce fo un d th ree ki lo gr am s of m et ha m

ph et am in e in th e cen te r co ns ol e of th e ve hi cl e. The dr iv er of th e

ve hi cl e, Jo rg e Sal ga do
, pl ed gu il ty to t h e c h a r g e s ag ai ns t hi m , co op erat ed wit h th e
go ve rn m en t, an d te st ifi ed at tri al

. Sal ga do te st ifi ed th at Bu rg os -Val de z ha d be en in vo lv ed in acq ui rin g m et ha m ph et am in e in Ph oe ni x fo r Dari o Verd ug o- Gala vi z an d
th at Bu rg os -Val de z ha d pa ck ed th e m et ha m ph et am in e in to th e ve hi cl e in whi ch th ey

were cau gh t. If cred it e d b y th e jury, Sal ga do ’s te st im on y al on e was su ffi ci en t to

su st ai n Bu rg os -Val de z’s co nv ic ti on

. Se e Bow ie , 61 8 F.3 d at 81 4 (h ol di ng th at ev en th e who ll y un co rro bo rat ed te st im o n y o f an acco m pl ic e is su ffi ci en t to su st ai n a

co nv ic ti on ab se nt faci a l i n c r e di bi li ty or in su bs ta nt ia li ty). Bec au se a jury’ s de te rm in at io ns of wit ne ss cred ib il it y are “ vi rtu al ly un rev ie wab le on ap pe al ,” Boy ce , 56 4 F.3d at 91 6, and be cau se we m us t co ns tru e th e ev id en ce p res en te d “ in th e li gh t

m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi ng co nf li ct s in th e go ve rn m en t’s fav or , an d

acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at su pp or t th e ve rd ic t,” Y ar ri ng to n , 63 4 F.3 d at
44 9, Bu rg os -Val de z’s in su ffi ci en cy cla im fai ls , and we affi rm

hi s co nv ic ti on

.

2. S en te nc in g

The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Bu rg os -V a l d e z to 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.
Bu rg os -Val de z arg u e s th at hi s be lo w-g ui de li ne s- ran ge se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y

- 1 3

-un reas on ab le be cau se of di sp ari ti es be twee n hi s se nt en ce an d th at of Jo rg e Sal ga do
,

who Bu rg os -Val de z cl ai m s was a si m il arl y s i tu at ed de fen da nt

. The di st ric t co ur t
sp eci fie d pr o pe r reas on s fo r it s di sp arat e tre at m en t of Bu rg os -Val de z an d Sal ga do
, in cl ud in g t he fact th at Sal ga do pl ed gu il ty and it s fi nd in g t ha t Sa lg ad o was a m in or
pa rti ci pa nt whi le Bu rg os -Val de z was no t. Se e Bo w i e , 6 18 F.3 d at 81 9; U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2. Bu rg os -Val de z al so ass ert s t ha t th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t p ro pe rly exp la in
hi s se nt en ce, as req ui red by 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (c). W hi le Bu rg os -Val de z is co rrec t th at th e co ur t di d no t en ga ge in an ex pa ns iv e reci ta ti on of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, it was no t
req ui red to do so

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Feems te r , 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ). In th is cas e, th e rec or d i s s uf fic ie nt to all ow fo r m ean in gf ul rev ie w, se e Gal l
, 55 2 U.S. at 50
, an d it sh ows th at th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s were co ns id ered pr op erl y ,

se e Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn , 62 7 F.3 d 10 68
, 10 73 -7 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), cer t. de ni ed
, 56 2 U.S. ---, 1 32 S. Ct. 2 74 (20 11 ). Ther efo re, we d o n ot fin d an ab us e of di sc ret io n i n th e d is tri ct co ur t’s s en te nc in g o f Bu rg os -Val de z, an d we a ffi rm hi s s en te nc e.

D. Melen dez- Roc ha

1. Ne w tr ia l

At t h e ou ts et of th e tri al in res po ns e to a m ot io n in li min e , th e di st ric t co ur t

or de red th at no m en ti on be m ad e of Mel en de z-Ro ch a’s im m ig rat io n st at us

. Dur in g

v o ir di re an d ag ai n du rin g hi s cl os in g arg um en t, co -d efen da nt Mi ch el le M u n o z ’s

co un se l al lu de d to th e fact th at al l of t h e de fen da nt s ot he r th an Mu no z were no t ci ti zen s. Bo th of th es e in st an ces pr om pt ed Mel en de z-Ro ch a to m ov e fo r a m is tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t refu se d to de cl are a m is tri al bu t di d is su e a cu rat iv e jury in st ru ct io n. W e rev ie w it s de ci si on to de ny th e req ue st fo r a n e w t r i a l f or ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d S ta te s v. Br an do n , 52 1 F .3d 10 19 , 10 26 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

- 1 4

-“ W e gi ve th e di st ric t co ur t ‘bro ad di sc ret io n to gr an t or de ny a m ot io n fo r

m is tri al be cau se it is in a far be tt er po si ti on to we i g h t he effe ct ’ of an y po ss ib le

pr ejud ic e.” Uni te d St at es v. Urq ha rt , 46 9 F.3 d 74 5, 74 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S t a t e s v

. Dav id

so n , 12 2 F.3 d 53 1, 53 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )). “ [L]ess dr as ti c

m eas ur es su ch as a c a u ti on ary in st ru ct io n are ge ne ral ly su ffi ci en t to al le vi at e
pr ejud ic e.” Dav id

so n , 12 2 F.3 d at 53 8. W he n su ch an in st ru ct io n is gi ve n, we m us t

“ de te rm in e whe th er th e ve rd ic t was ‘sub st an ti al ly swa y ed ’ by th e pr ejud ic ia l

co m m en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Uri ck
, 43 1 F.3 d 30 0, 30 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d
St at es v. Co le man , 34 9 F.3 d 10 77
, 10 87 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ) )

. “ In m ak in g th is
de te rm in at io n, we m

us t ev al ua te whe th er a cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n was su ffi ci en t in th e

co nt ex t of th e en ti re tri al
, an d weig h th e pr ejud ic e ag ai ns t t h e s t r e ng th of th e
go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce.” Id

. “ Thi s co ur t wil l affi rm a co nv ic ti on

. . . whe re th ere was ‘sub st an ti al ev id en ce’ of g ui lt .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Co le man , 34 9 F .3d at 1 08 7)

.

The ev id en ce of Mel en de z-Ro ch a’s gu il t was su bs ta nt ia l

. M ari a Ro jas, who

wor ke d as a dr iv er an d as si st an t fo r Dari o Verd ug o- Ga l av iz
, te st ifi ed th at sh e de li ve red m on ey an d a Mer ced es -Ben z au to m ob il e to Mel en de z-Ro ch a on Verd ug oGala vi z’s be ha lf as pa y

m en t fo r m et ha m

ph et am in e. Sh e fu rth er te st ifi ed th at sh e an d
Mel en de z-Ro ch a di sc us se d hi s dr ug di st rib ut io n bu si ne ss ex te ns iv el y

. Late r, Ro jas
of fere d to di st rib ut e dr ug s fo r Mel en de z-Ro ch a, bu t he to ld he r th at hi s bu si ne ss was

no t do in g ve ry well an d de cl in ed he r of fer. Ro jas al so t e s t i f

i e d th at on Verd ug oGala vi z’s or de rs sh e de po si te d m on ey owe d to Mel en de z-Ro ch a fo r dr ug s in to a ba nk

acco un t. Serg io Mu no z te st ifi ed th a t he tra ns po rte d m et ha m ph et am in e fro m M e l e n d ez-R oc ha in Ph oe ni x to Verd ug o- Gala vi z in Si ou x Fal ls

. Mel en de z-Ro ch a dr op pe d m et ha mp h e t am in e of f at Mu no z’s ho us e, an d th en Mu no z wou ld dr iv e it

no rth to Si ou x Fal ls

. Mu no z te st ifi ed th at he de li ve red a bo at to Mel en de z-Ro ch a as
pa y m en t fo r a dr ug de bt , t ha t he bo ug ht dr ug s fro m Mel en de z-Ro c h a a t M el en de zRo ch a’s ho us e, an d t ha t Ver du go -Gal av iz de po si te d m on ey in to a ba nk acco un t for
Mel en de z-Ro ch a as pa y

m en t fo r m et ha m

ph et am in e. Lau ra W el ch
, th e m ot he r of two

- 1 5

-o f Mel en de z-Ro ch a’s ch il dr en , ga ve ex te ns iv e te st im on y ab ou t Mel en de z-Ro ch a’s

act iv it ie s in th e met h a m ph et am in e tra de an d de sc rib ed ho w la rg e qu an ti ti es of

m e t h a mph et am in e were of te n st or ed at th ei r ho m e an d in hi s cars an d ho w sh e wit hd rew m on ey fro m ba nk acco un ts on hi s be ha lf. Lau ra’s m ot he r, Kerri W el ch
, te st ifi ed th at sh e se t up a ba nk acco un t on Mel en de z-Ro ch a’s be ha lf an d wou ld
wit hd r a w m on ey fo r hi m as it was de po si te d by ot he rs

. Bec au se th ere was

“ su bs ta nt ia l ev i d e n c e ” o f Mel en de z-Ro ch a’s gu il t, Co le man , 3 49 F.3 d at 10 87 , t he

ve rd ic t was no t “ ‘sub st an ti al ly swa y ed ’ by th e pr ejud ic ia l co m m en t,” Uri ck
, 43 1 F.3 d

at 30 4 (q uo ti ng Co le man , 34 9 F.3 d at 10 87 ), an d th eref or e th e cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n gi ve n was “ su ffi ci en t in th e co nt ex t of th e en ti re tri al ” to al le vi at e an y pr ejud ic e th at

m ay ha ve res ul te d fro m th e refe ren ce to Mel en de z-Ro ch a’s im m ig rat io n st at us

. Se e Uri ck , 43 1 F .3d at 3 04

.

2. S en te nc in g

The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Mel en de z-Ro ch a to 34 8 m on th s’ im p r i so nm en t,

va ry in g be lo w hi s ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge to do so

. “ [W] he re a di st ric t

co ur t ha s se nt en ced a de fen da nt be lo w t h e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge , ‘it is ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n.’” Uni te d St at es v. Moo re , 58 1 F.3 d
68 1, 68 4 (8t h Cir. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. La za rs ki
, 56 0 F .3d 73 1, 73 3 (8t h
Ci r. 20 09 )). Mel en de z-Ro ch a arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le
be cau se th e d is tri ct co ur t fa il ed to co ns id er h is ag e, fam il y si tu at io n, o r ed uc at io na l

st at us as req ui red by § 35 53 (a) an d th at “ [h ]e is a no n- vi ol en t dr ug of fen de r, an d 34 8

m on th s i s s im

pl y to o m uc h t im e in li gh t o f hi s o ffen se .”

We do no t req ui re a m ech an ic al reci ta ti on of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s a t

se nt en ci ng

. Feems te r , 57 2 F.3 d a t 46 1. In st ead
, “ it si m pl y m us t be cl ear fro m th e

reco rd th at th e di st ric t co ur t act ua ll y co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in de te rm in in g th e se nt en ce.” Uni te d St a te s v. W al ki ng Eag le
, 55 3 F.3 d 65 4, 65 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )

- 1 6

-(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Li tt le Haw k
, 44 9 F.3 d 83 7, 84 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). Alt ho ug h

it di d no t m ech an ic al ly l is t each of th es e fact or s, th e d i s t r i c t co ur t st at ed th at it ha d

co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in reac hi ng it s se nt en ci ng de ci si on

. The di st ric t

co ur t al so rece iv ed an d read a nu m be r of le tt ers fro m su pp or te rs of Mel en de z-Ro ch a,

an d reco gn iz ed Mel en de z-Ro ch a’s no n- cri m in al bu si ne ss act iv it ie s an d t h e l awab id in g ch arac te r of hi s fam il y , an d h eard ex te ns iv e arg um en t fro m Mel en de zRo ch a’s co un se l. “ [W] he re th e di st ric t co ur t h e a r d arg um en t fro m co un se l ab ou t
sp eci fic § 35 53 (a) fact or s, we m ay pr es um e th at th e co ur t co ns id ered th os e fact or s.”
Uni te d S ta te s v. K

ea ti ng , 57 9 F .3d 89 1, 8 93 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

W e fin d no pr oc ed ur al erro r on th e pa rt of th e di st ric t co ur t, an d Mel en de zRo ch a ha s no t sh own th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in
de te rm in in g hi s be lo w-g ui de li ne s- ran ge se nt en ce or tha t his se nt en ce was in an y ot he r
way su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e t h e r efo re fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in
Mel en de z-Ro ch a’s se nt en ce.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

- 1 7

-