## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 08

- 3275 & 08

- 3418 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . J ESUS N. G ONZALEZ -M EN DOZ A A ND O M AR A L E J A ND R O G ONZALEZ -V IL LA, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts. Appeals from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 05 CR 844

— SamuelD er-Yegh iayan, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 10, 2009

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 14, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, S YKES, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. O m a r A lejan d ro G on za lez -V illa ( “Vi l l a”) and J esus N . G onzal ez- M endoza ( “M endoza”) ple aded gui l ty to con spi ring to di str ibute o r posse ss w i th i ntent to dist ribute he ro i n an d co cai ne. The di str i ct co ur t se nt en ce d Vi l l a an d M en d oza to 1 42 months ’ a nd 130 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, respect i vel y. They a pp eal th e i rs e n t e n c e s , a n d w e a ffi r m.2 N os. 08

- 3275 & 08

- 3418 I. A t t h e d ire c tio n of law en for c em e n t a ge n ts , a c on fid en tia l i n for m an t p re te n d in g t o b e in te re st ed in pu rchas i ng a tr uck approached Vil l a, w ho had advert i sed one f orsa l e. The co nver sat i on e vol ved i n to a disc ussi on ab o utna r co ti cs . The i nf o r m an t se cr et l y r ec o r ded th e conve rs ati on a s he and Vil l a di scu sse d the pri ce o f a kil ogram of he roin, and V illa later provid ed the inform an t wi tha sa m p le o fhe r o i n. The ne xtda y, a g en ts c o ndu cted a sto p ofVi l l a’ s v ehi cl e nea r h i s r esi dence. Du ring the co urse o fthe sto p, Vi l l a told a gents that i ns i de a pi ckup trucki n h i s g ar ag e was a s ui tc as e co ntainin g a lar ge sum o fcas h and ei ght k i l ogr am s o fco ca i ne . Vi l l a al so c o ns en ted to a s ea r cho fhi s ho us e an d gar age . Insi de the picku p truck i n the gar age , ag ents di s c o v e r e d a s ui t c a s e c o nt a i ning$3 12, 000 i n c a s h a nd a duffelb agc o nt aini ngthr ee k i l o g r ams o fhe r o i n a nd f o ur ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. Vi l l a then to l d ag en ts thathe was fro m M ex i co a nd was i n Chi ca g o t o o ve r se e dr ug s an d dr u g p ro c eeds fora M exi can ca rt el
. Vi l l a a l so sta ted that he rec eived $1500 per w eek for carrying ou t his oversi ght r esponsibi l i ti es. W hen ag ents sea rche d Vil l a’ s ho use, theyenco unte red M endoza, Vi l l a’ s 19-y ear - ol d bro ther

- i n-l aw fro m M exi co w ho had bee n l i vi ng i n the house f ortw o m on th s. W hen que st i o ne d b y a g en ts s ho r tly a fte rth eye nt er ed th e house, M endoza s tat ed he had packe d the cu rre ncy f o und in the s ui tc as e atVi l l a’ s di r ec ti o n and th at he ha d pr ev i o us l y wra pped m o ne y o n Vi l l a’ s i nstruc ti o n. M en d o z a a l s o a d mi t t e d h e k n e w th e mo n e y wa s dr ug pr o ce eds
. M en do za w as que sti o ne d b y a g en ts a s ec o ndN os. 08

- 3275 & 08

- 3418 3

V illa orig ina lly ch allen g ed the d istrict cou rt’ s d en ial of his 1 m otio n to sup p ress i n h i s o p en ing b rief. W e sub sequ en tly g ran ted his m otio n to w ithd raw tha t arg u m en t. ti m e at th e res i den ce a nd a thi r d t i m e atapo l i ce s ta ti o n; both ti m es he r epeate d that he had w ra pp ed the m oney i n the sui tcas e a t V ill a’ s di re cti on, al though he did not sayhe knew the curr ency w as drug pro ceeds. Vil l a a nd M en doza were i nd i cted f orco nspir i ng to d ist rib u te or p os s e s s w ith int en t t o d ist rib u te h er oin and cocaine, as wellas pos se ss i on with i ntent to di st r ibut e th e sa m e. Vi l l a al so was c ha rged wi tho ne co unto fdi st r ibut i nghe r o i n b as ed on the s ampl e he provi ded to the confi denti ali nfo rm ant. The defen dants fi l ed m oti ons to s u p press ev i dence and sta tem ents they h ad m ad e t o a ge n ts , w h ich th e d ist ric t cou rt d en ied . Villa an d M en do za the n e nt er ed g uilty pl ea s to the c o unt ofco nspir i ng to d i str ibute orp oss ess with intent to dist ribute her oi n and coca i ne. A t s entencing, the dist ri ct courtenhanced Vi l l a’ s Guidel i nes o ffense leve lbytwo l eve l s forbeing a m anage r or su p ervisor in th e offen se an d de nied his requ est fo r a safety- v a lve adj us tm en t. T he cou rt enh an ced M en d oza’s offense l eve lbytwo l eve l s a fterfi nd i ng he had obst ructe d j u st i c e by m ak in g fa lse st at em en ts in h is a ffid av it in supp or t o fhi s s up press i on m oti on, and the c ou rt d id not re du ce hi s o ffense l eve lf oracc ep tance ofr esponsibi l i ty. The dis tr i ct cou rt then sente nced Vil l a a nd M endoza t o 142 m onths’ and 130 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, r espect i vel y. The defe nd ants now appeal, chal l engi ng the i r sente nces. 14 N os. 08

- 3275 & 08

- 3418

The Guide l i ne s do n otdefi ne the te rm s “m ana ge r” or 2 “su p erv isor.” A ltho u g h a p p lication no te 4 t o § 3B 1.1 instru cts tha t the follow ing sev en f acto rs a r e t o b e u sed to d isting u ish or ga ni z e r s / l e a der s fr om m a na ge r s / s up e r vi s or s , we h a ve concl ud ed “that they are s ti ll rel evant i n asc ert aini ng w hether an individual ha d a s u pervisory r ole at al l, ” U ni t ed Sta t es v. H o w ell , 52 7 F .3d 6 46, 64 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08 ) : ( 1) the e xe rc i s e of decisi on m aki ng a uthor i t y; ( 2) the na t ur e ofpar t i c i pat i on i n th e c o mmi s s i o n o fth e o ffe n s e ; ( 3 ) th e r e c r u i t me n to fa c c o mpl i c es ; ( 4) the c l ai m ed r i ghtt o a l ar ge r sha re ofthe fru i t s ofthe c ri m e; ( 5) the deg re e ofpar t i c i pat i on i n pl ann i ng o r or gan i zi ng the offense; (6) the na t ur e and s c ope ofthe i l l eg al ac t i vi t y; an d (7) the d eg ree o f con tro l and au tho rity exercised ov er o the rs. II. A
. Vill a O n ap p eal, V ill a fi rst argu es th at th e d istri ct cou rt er re d by e nhancinghi s o ffense l evel f orse rv i ng as a man a g e ro rsu pe r v i s o ro fcr i mi na la c t i v i t y u nd e rU. S
. S
. G. § 3 B1. 1( c)
. W e rev iew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s dete rm i nati on th at a d efend an t played a m an ageria l or sup ervisory ro le in an offe n s e fo r c lea r er ro r. U nited Sta tes v. P ira , 535 F.3d 724, 730 (7th Cir. 2008). U nd er § 3B 1.1( c), a tw o-l e vel inc rease in a d efend an t’s offense l eve l i s w ar ra nted i f the cri m i na l ac ti vi ty i nv o l ved fewertha n fi ve pa r ti ci pan ts a nd the de fen dan t w as an “o rg an ize r, lea d er , m an ag er , or su p er vis or .” 2 Vi l l a c o nt e nd s tha tthe § 3 B1
. 1 ( c ) e nh a nc e men tc a nn ot be a pp l i ed unle ss he exer ci sed so m e e l em en t of c ontr ol o v e ra n o t h e rp a r t i c i p a n ti n th e o ffe n s e . T h e r e i s s o meN os. 08

- 3275 & 08

- 3418 5

C ompare, e . g. , Un i t ed Sta t es v. A nderso n , N o. 08- 2925, s li p op . at 3 22, 2009 W L 27782 3 6, at *9 ( 7th Cir
. Sept. 3, 2009) ( st ati ng that § 3 B1. 1 e nha nc em en t“c ann ot b e appl i ed un l es s the defen dant ex er c i s ed s om e c ont ro l ove r othe rs i nvol ved i n the c om m i s s i on o f th e o ffen se ” (qu o ta tio n m a rk s a n d cit a t i o n s o m itt ed )), a nd U n i te d S tat es v. Fon es , 51 F. 3d 6 63 , 66 8- 70 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95 ) ( hol di ng that§ 3B1. 1 enhancem ent w as im prop erl y app li ed w here d efend a n t la ck ed con tro l of or au tho rity ov er an oth er p articipa n t), w ith P i ra , 535 F. 3d at 730 ( st ati ng iti s not nec es sar y
“ ‘ thatthe defe nd ant e xer ci se d control, s o long as the cr im inal ac t i vi t y i nvol ves m or e than on e par t i c i pantan d the defen dant p l a y e d a c o o r di n a t i n g o r o r g a n i z i n g r o l e . ’ ” ( q u o t i ng U n i te d S tat es v. C arrera , 25 9 F .3d 81 8 , 82 7(7t h C ir . 20 0 1 ))). V il la argues that f acti s not i nd ic ati ve ofhis contr ol over 4 M endo za, b ut m erel y show s he and M endo za w ere co- conspir ators w ho d ivided res pon sib ili ti es . That i s not the m ostreas onabl e c har ac t er i za t i on ofM en doza ’ s st at em en t
. B utas s um i ng thatc har ac t er i za t i on i s pl aus ibl e, we w ill notfi nd c l ea r er ro r w he n th e fact find er h as ch osen b etw een tw o p erm issible v ie w s o f th e e v id en ce . U ni t ed Sta t es v. Hatten- Lubic k, 5 2 5 F
. 3d 5 7 5 , 58 0 (7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ). tensi on in o ur ca se l aw o n thi s point. But eve n i fco ntro l 3 ov er another parti ci pant i s the s i neq ua non f o r an e nh an c em en t u n d er § 3 B 1.1 , th er e w as ev id en c e t h at V illa exer cise d co ntro lo verM endoza: M endoza t ol d agents he had packed the m oneyi n the sui tcas e a t the dire cti on ofVi l l a a nd thathe ha d done so on o th er oc casi ons. 4 I n additi on, Vi l l a a dm i tte d h e w as i n Chicag o to ove rs ee drugs a nd dru g proce eds f ora M exi can ca rt el, wh i ch su gg es ts h e p lay ed a c o o rd in at in g or org an izin g p ar t in th e crim inal activity. For these reas ons , t h e d istri ct cou rt di d no t cl ea r l y e r rb y f ind i ngtha t Vi l l a o cc upi ed a m an -6 N os. 08

- 3275 & 08

- 3418

Sectio n 3C 1.1 p ro v id es: “If (A) the d efend an t w i l lfully 5 obs t ru c t ed or i m pede d, or at t em pt ed t o o bs t ru c tor i m pede , the adm i ni s t ra t i on ofj us t i c e w ith re s pec tt o the i nve s t i gat i on, pro s ec ut i on, or s en t en c i ng o fthe i ns t an t o ff en s e ofc onvi c t i on, a n d (B ) th e o b st r u c t i v e c o n d u c tr e l a t e d to (i ) th e d e fe n d a n t ’s o ffen se o f co n v i c t i o n an d an y re le v a n t c o n d u ct ; or (ii) a cl o se ly re la te d o ffen se , in cr ea se th e o ffen se le v el b y 2 l ev el s.” age ri alo r supervi sory ro l e a nd enhanci ng hi s o ffense level acc ord ingly un d er § 3B 1.1( c). Vi l l a al so a rgue s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed byfi ndi ng he di d no t qua l i fy f o r a two
- l ev el“ sa fety v al ve ” adj us tment und e rU. S
. S
. G. § § 2 D1
. 1 ( b ) ( 1 1 ) a nd 5 C1
. 2
. On e r e qu i re m en t f o r s a fe t y - v a l v e r e l i e f i s tha t the de fe nd a nt w as not a ma na ger or s up e r v i s o ro fo the r s i n the o ffe ns e , U. S
. S
. G. § 5 C1. 2( a) ( 4) ; ther ef or e, o ur a ffi rm an c e o fthe dist ri ct cour t’ s § 3B1. 1( c) enhancem ent o fM en d oza ’ s o ffense l eve lf orbeing a m anage r orsuperv i sorf or ecl ose s that ar gum ent. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa i nz-P re ci ado , 56 6 F
. 3d 708, 715 (7th Cir. 2009).

B. M e ndoz a M endoza’ s fi rs t a rgum ent i s that the di str i ct c ourter re d b y e n h an c in g h is offe n se lev el u n d er U .S.S .G . § 3C 1.1 for obstru cting j us tice. Ou r review of a d istri ct cou rt’s 5 f actualfi nd i ngs s up portin g a § 3 C1. 1 e nhancem ent i s for c lea r er ro r. U nite d States v . P ow el l , 57 6 F
. 3d 482, 49 8 (7th C ir. 2009). I n hi s mo t i o n t o s up pr e s s the s t a t e men t s h e ma de to age nts, M endoza a sse rt ed that he was subj ecte d toN os. 08

- 3275 & 08

- 3418 7 custo diali nter ro gat i on pri orto r ecei vi ng hi s M i r anda w ar ni ng s . In hi s a ffi da v i ti n s up po r to fthe s up pr e s s i on mo t i o n, Me n d o z a c l a i me d th a th e w a s h a nd c uf f e d i mm edi ate l y a fterag ents enter ed th e h ou se, was then t ake n to the g ar age an d que st i o ne d, a nd di d no t r ec ei ve a ny M i r anda wa r n i n g s u n t i lh e a r r i v e d a tt h e po l i c e s t a t i o n . At an evi denti ar y hear i ng, how eve r, an age n t test i fi ed that M endoza was nothandcuffed i m m edia tel y upon the e nt ry o fag ents i nto the r esi dence, but w as onl y e sco r te d t o the l i vingr o o m a nd a sk ed so m e quest i o ns wh i l e a g e n t s c o n d u c t e d a s e a r c h o fth e h o u s e . T h e s a me age nt al so sta te d thatafterthe i ni ti alquesti oni ng, M endo za was g i ve n M i r anda wa r n i n g s b y a n o th e ra g en t whi l e i ns i de the r e s i de nc e b e f o r e b e i ngquest i o ne d a se co nd t i m e. The di st r i ctc our t cr edi te d the g o ve r nm en t agen t’s acc ou nt of even ts at th e hou se, foun d M e n d o za’s ver si on false , a nd enhanced M endoza’ s o ffense l eve lf or obs tr ucti on o fj usti ce. W e w ill a ssum e, as bo th par ti es concede, thatthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s e nhancem ent was base d on a fi nd i ng o fperj ury. A ccor ding to appli cati on n ot e 4(b) to § 3C1. 1, “co m m i tti ng, subo rni ng, o r att em pti ng to subo rn perj ury” i s a n exam p l e o fco nd uct t o w hi ch the enhancem ent a pp l i es. Perj ury occur s “ w hen a w i tness testi fyi ng under o ath g i ve s f al se t es ti m o ny abo uta mate r i almatt er wi ththe w i l l ful i ntent to provi de f als e testi m ony, i nstea d ofas a re sul t o fco nfusi on, m i sta ke, or fau l ty m em or y. ” U nited S ta te s v. P ri ce, 5 16 F
. 3d 59 7, 6 07( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( ci ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. D unn igan , 507 U
. S. 87, 94 (1993)). M en d oz a a rg u es th at th e s ta te m en ts h e m ad e in h is affi davi t were not f al se. W e g i ve speci aldefer ence to a8 N os. 08

- 3275 & 08

- 3418

“ M a t e r i a l ” i nfor m a t i oni s “ i nfor m a t i ontha t, i fbe l i e ve d, 6 w ould tend to i nflue n ce or affectthe i ss ue und er dete rm inati on. ” U.S. S. G
. § 3C1. 1 app
. n. 6. d istri ct cou rt’s cred ibi li ty d eterm inations , how ever, w h ich se ld om co n st itu te cle ar err or . Un i t e d S t a t e s v. White, 2 40 F
. 3d 65 6, 6 61 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. Be ca us e th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s vi ew o fthe e vi den ce p r es en te d dur i ngthe su p p re ss ion h ea rin g an d in M en d oz a ’ s a f f i d a v it w as p lau sib le, w e w ill n ot re -w eig h th e e v i d en c e. See id. at 660- 61. M endoza a l so cl ai m s that hi s s tat em ents, ev en i ff al se, w er e le ga l in n at u r e r at h er th an fac tu al a n d th u s c ou ld no th a v e b e e n mat e r i a l
. No ts o . Men do z a ’ s s t a tem ents w e r e f a ctu al: they asserted that the circu m stan ces su rr o undi ng hi s que st i o ni ngb y a g en ts t r an spi r ed i n a cer tain w ay. A nd t h os e stat em ents w er e cl ear l y m ate
ria l. M e n d o z a’s cla im th at h e w as h an d c u ffed im m ed i- 6 ate l y a fterag ents enter ed the re si dence bo re o n w h ether he was i n c us to dy when he w as fi r stque st i o ne d a nd thus wh etherhe was e nti tl ed to M i r anda warni ngs a t th atpo i nti n t i m e. Hi s cl aim th at he was no t g i ve n a ny M i r anda wa r ning s un t i l a ft e r he wa s t a k e n t o the pol i ce sta ti on was r el evantto deter m i ni ng wh ether h e w as i m proper l y inter ro gat ed w i thout such w ar ni ngs when que st i o ne d the s ec o nd t i m e atthe r es iden ce . Had the dist ri ct c ourtb elie ved M endoza’ s a sse rt i ons i n hi s a ffi davi t, M en do za ’ s m o ti o n t o s uppr es s th e st at emen ts he gave to ag ents m i ght ha ve been gr anted; hence, tho se ass er ti ons w er e m ate ri al. For these r eas ons, the dist ri ctN os. 08

- 3275 & 08

- 3418 9

The gove rnm en t argue s thatM en doza e i the r wai ved o r 7 fo r fe i ted this arg u m en t by no t raising it i n th e d istrict cou rt. H ad M en doza r ai s ed the i s s ue, our r evi ew woul d be f or cl ea r e rr o r. Uni t e d S t a t e s v. M e s s i no , 382 F. 3d 7 0 4 , 7 0 9 ( 7th Cir
. 2004)
. Beca u se w e c onclude M endo za cannot prevail und er the c l e a r e r r ors t a nd a r d o fr e view , we n e e d n otde c i de w he the r he w aiv ed or forfeited the a rg u m en t. cour t’ s a pp l i cati on o fthe § 3 C1. 1 obstr ucti on o fj usti ce enhancem ent was notcl ear l y e rr oneo us. M en d oz a a lso arg u es t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in fin d in g h e d id n otqu ali fy for a n ac c ep ta n c e o f res p on sibil ity offense level redu ction. U nd er U .S .S
. G
. § 3E 1.1( a), 7 a s entencing co urt m ay decrease a d efendant’s o ffense l eve l by tw o l eve l s i fhe “ cl ear l y dem onst ra tes acc eptance o fr es po ns ibi li tyf o rhi s o ffen se . ” Buta de fen dan t w hose se ntence w as proper l y e nhanced fo r obs tr ucti on of jus tic e is p r es u m ed n otto h av e a c c ep te d res p on sib ility
. U nite d States v. D avis , 44 2 F .3d 1003, 1009 (7th C ir. 20 06 )
. Onl y whene xc ept i o na lc i r cumst an ce s ar e pr es en t w ill th at p re su m p tio n be ov er c om e. Id. at10 09- 10. As di sc us se d abo ve , the di st r i ctc o urt ’ s enha nc ement ofM endoza’ s o ffense l eve lf orobstr ucti ng j usti ce was appropri ate ; t h er efor e, he i s pre sum ed not to have accep t e d r e s po ns ib i l i t y . Men do z a do e s n o ta r g ue that excepti onalci rcum sta nces exi st that w oul d j usti fy a n ac c ep t a n c e o f res p on sib ility red u c tio n, an d th er e is nothi ng i n the re cor d that dem on str ate s e xcepti onal ci rcu m sta nc es . M er ely pl ea di ngg ui l tya nd s av i ngthe g o ve r nm en t fr o m t r i alpr epa r at i o n a r e al o ne i ns uffici en t10 N os. 08

- 3275 & 08

- 3418 f ora defe nd ant t o re cei ve an acc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty redu cti on, “e speci al l y in the f ace off al se sta tem ents by th e d efe n d an t.” U nited S t a t es v. P a rtee, 30 1 F
. 3d 576, 58 1 (7th C ir. 2002). A ccord ingly, the d is trict court ’s dete rm i nati on that M endoza was notel i gibl e fora re du cti on f oracceptance ofr esponsibi l i ty w as not cl ear l y e rr oneo us.
III
. Based on the f or ego i ng, we concl ud e that t h e d i str i ct c ou rtd id n otco m m it c lea r er ro r b y d et er m in in g t h at V illa w as a m anage r orsuperv i sori n the offen se a nd that he was not el i gibl e fora safet y-v alve adj ustm ent. Fo r M en do za, the d istri ctc o ur t di d no t cl ea r l y e r ri n fi ndi ng he o b structed j usti ce a nd was not el i gibl e foran a c c e p t an ce o fr e s p o n s ib i l i t y r e d u c t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y, we A FFIRM the defe nd ants’ se ntences
.

10- 14- 09