UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NO. 09-20353-5

Plaintiff, HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

v. 

D-5 JAVIER GONZALEZ -LOZA 

 Defendant.

____________________________/

GOVERNMENT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 

NOW COMES THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its undersigned attorneys,

BARBARA L. MCQUADE, United States Attorney, and WAYNE PRATT and TERRENCE R.

HAUGABOOK, Assistant United States Attorneys, and states the following in support of its

Sentencing Memorandum. 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 14, 2009, DEA began court authorized interceptions of co-defendant Francisco

Hernandez's phone. On May 19, 2009, agents intercepted a call between co-defendant Hernandez

and co-defendant Demecko Motten wherein the two discussed a 2 kilogram cocaine transaction.

Motten was later observed delivering approximately $62,500 to Hernandez for the transaction. On

May 23rd and 26th, co-defendant Hernandez was intercepted in conversations with co-defendant

Rosa Orozco wherein the two discussed defendant Hernandez placing a safe in her home for her

to store Hernandez's drug proceeds. 

On May 28th, agents intercepted a call wherein co-defendant Hernandez and co-defendant

Bradley Jorge Atan discussed a $30,000 cocaine related debt owed by Atan to Hernandez. On June

3rd, agents intercepted a call between co-defendant Hernandez and co-defendant Orozco wherein

Case 2:09-cr-20353-PJD-MKM ECF No. 152, PageID.629 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 7
Hernandez informed her that he was going to Chicago to meet a drug supplier and the need for her

to store and count the drug proceeds. Agents established surveillance of Hernandez and observed

him meeting with defendant Javier Gonzalez-Loza, in Chicago, along with co-defendant Eduardo

Campos-Contreras. 

Around the early part of June 2009, agents intercepted calls wherein co-defendant

Hernandez, in coded conversations, alerted co-defendants Motton, Hugo Saldana, and Atan of the

impending arrival of cocaine from Chicago, Illinois on either June 8th or June 9th. On June 9th,

agents setup surveillance along Interstate 94 and co-defendant Contreras was observed driving a

green 1996 Passat in Berrien County Michigan. A subsequent traffic stop and consensual search

of the vehicle, after co-defendant Contreras gave conflicting information about his travel, revealed

10 kilograms of cocaine secreted in the rear bumper of the car and packaged in 10 individual bricks.

On June 10th, agents intercepted co-defendant Hernandez's phone wherein he discussed the seizure

with co-defendants Saldana, Atan, and Jorge Lopez-Lopez. Undaunted by this seizure, on June 22,

2009 agents intercepted a call wherein co-defendant Hernandez and defendant Javier GonzalezLoza discussed the intercepted shipment and planned another shipment. 

On July 20, 2009, agents intercepted a call between co-defendant Hernandez and defendant

Gonzalez-Loza wherein defendant Gonzalez-Loza informed Hernandez that his vehicle was loaded

with a shipment of narcotics for Detroit, Michigan. Agents' subsequent surveillance spotted codefendant Hernandez traveling from Chicago to Detroit. Upon getting closer to Detroit, codefendant Hernandez made an intercepted call wherein he notified co-defendant Motton of the

impending arrival of the drugs. Agents stopped the vehicle in the Romulus, Michigan area. A

subsequent search of the vehicle revealed approximately 4 kilograms of cocaine secreted beneath

2

Case 2:09-cr-20353-PJD-MKM ECF No. 152, PageID.630 Filed 10/14/11 Page 2 of 7
the seat cushions of a Mercury Mountaineer vehicle driven by co-defendant Lopez-Lopez. 

In post-arrest mirandized statements, defendant Hernandez indicated he received the drugs

from co-defendant Gonzalez-Loza and verified that co-defendant Campos-Contreras' June 9th

cocaine cache was being transported for Hernandez. Defendant Hernandez further indicated that

Campos-Contreras had made 4 prior drug transportation runs carrying about 5 kilograms per run.

Co-defendant Lopez-Lopez indicated in a post-arrest mirandized statement that he knew drugs were

in the vehicle and admitted assisting co-defendant Hernandez.

II. THE RELEVANT 3553(a) FACTORS 

For the reasons detailed below, including Defendant’s prior criminal history and the

seriousness of the instant conduct, the government recommends a sentence within the guideline

range of 70-87 months, as determined in the Rule 11 agreement. 

A sentence within the guideline range of 70-87 months imprisonment appropriately

takes into account the factors Congress identified in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a), as the relevant

objectives and factors to be considered by sentencing courts in imposing a “sentence sufficient,

but not greater than necessary.” Section 18 U.S.C.§3553 provides: 

(a) Factors to be considered in imposing a sentence.–The court shall impose a

sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes

set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The court, in determining the

particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider–

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and

characteristics of the defendant;

(2) the need for the sentence imposed–

3

Case 2:09-cr-20353-PJD-MKM ECF No. 152, PageID.631 Filed 10/14/11 Page 3 of 7
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,

and to provide just punishment for the offense;

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training,

medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;

(3) the kinds of sentences available;

(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for–

(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category

of defendant as set forth in the guidelines–

(I) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(1) of

title 28, United States Code, subject to any amendments made to such

guidelines by act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments

have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into

amendments issued under section 994(p) of title 28); and

(ii) that, except as provided in section 3742(g), are in effect on the date the

defendant is sentenced; or

(B) in the case of a violation of probation or supervised release, the

applicable guidelines or policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code,

taking into account any amendments made to such guidelines or policy

statements by act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have

yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments

issued under section 994(p) of title 28);

(5) any pertinent policy statement–

(A) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(2) of

title 28, United States Code, subject to any amendments made to such policy

statement by act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have

yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments

issued under section 994(p) of title 28); and

(B) that, except as provided in section 3742(g), is in effect on the date the

defendant is sentenced.

4

Case 2:09-cr-20353-PJD-MKM ECF No. 152, PageID.632 Filed 10/14/11 Page 4 of 7
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with

similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and

(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

A. The Advisory Guideline Range

Despite being advisory, the Guidelines remain an important factor under section 3553(a)

in fashioning an appropriate sentence. As the Supreme Court noted in Rita v. United States, 551

U.S. 338, 345 (2007). “it is fair to assume that the Guidelines, insofar as practicable, reflect a

rough approximation of sentences that might achieve section 3553(a)’s objectives.”

Here the parties’ Rule 11 agreement contemplated a guideline range of 70-87 months in

custody. This range encompasses the nature of the crime committed by defendant GonzalezLoza in light of his prior cocaine related conviction. 

B. The 3553(a) Factors

According to ¶¶46-47, and 49, of the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), the defendant- who

himself had previously succumbed to the devastating addictiveness of cocaine and received a

felony conviction as a result- perpetuated , if not created, the cocaine addiction of untold others.

The defendant became involved in a cocaine conspiracy that trafficked in large amounts of

cocaine. As a result, large amounts of cocaine were being trafficked in order to be sold to untold

others who were struggling against, if not starting, their own cocaine addiction. This can only be

classified as selfishness, at the least, or indifference at the most. Against the backdrop of his

own experiences with cocaine, and impecunious upbringing, the defendant participated in this

conspiracy in return for remuneration either in the form of money or narcotics. Either way, it

5

Case 2:09-cr-20353-PJD-MKM ECF No. 152, PageID.633 Filed 10/14/11 Page 5 of 7
was all for the defendant’s personal benefit. In all likelihood, but for the government’s

investigation, the defendant’s participation in the conspiracy would’ve continued unabated. 

Looking at the history and characteristics of the defendant, in ten years since termination

of probation for his first cocaine related felony conviction at the age of twenty(PSR at¶47), the

defendant is now thirty-two years old and has incurred yet another felony cocaine conviction. It

is the government’s position that this is a classic example of recidivism. The instant felony

cocaine conviction is at the top of the cocaine felony food chain as it now involves trafficking

rather than mere possession.

III. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the Court

accept the Rule 11 and sentence defendant in accordance with, and within, the applicable

guideline range, as determined by the Rule 11, which is 70-87 months. 

 Respectfully submitted,

BARBARA L. MCQUADE

United States Attorney

S/WAYNE PRATT

S/TERRENCE R. HAUGABOOK 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 226-9100

Email:wayne.pratt@usdoj.gov 

terrence.haugabook@usdoj.gov

Date: October 14, 2011

6

Case 2:09-cr-20353-PJD-MKM ECF No. 152, PageID.634 Filed 10/14/11 Page 6 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 14, 2011, I filed the foregoing document which will

send notice to the following ECF participant:

Gerald K. Evelyn, Esq. 

535 Griswold, Ste. 1030

Detroit, MI 48075

Email:geraldeverlyn@yahoo.com 

 

S/WAYNE PRATT

S/TERRENCE R. HAUGABOOK 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 226-9100

Email:wayne.pratt@usdoj.gov 

terrence.haugabook@usdoj.gov

Date: October 14, 2011

Case 2:09-cr-20353-PJD-MKM ECF No. 152, PageID.635 Filed 10/14/11 Page 7 of 7