# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604
ArguedFebruary10,2010DecidedJuly6,2010

Before

KENNETHF.RIPPLE,CircuitJudge

DANIELA.MANION,CircuitJudge

ANNCLAIREWILLIAMS,CircuitJudge

Nos.091478,091979

U NITEDS TATESOFA MERICA ,PlaintiffAppellee,

v.

M AXIMOP INEDA B UENAVENTURAand E FRAINP INEDA B UENAVENTURA,DefendantsAppellants

. AppealsfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheWesternDistrictofWisconsin.

No.08CR100

BarbaraB.Crabb, Judge

.

ORDER

BrothersandcodefendantsMaximoand EfrainPinedaBuenaventuraeachpledguiltytoconspiringtopossesswithintenttodistributefivekilogramsormoreofcocaine,inviolationof21U.S.C.§841(a)(1).Maximowassentencedto210months’imprisonment,andEfrainwassentencedto120months.Bothnowappealtheirsentences,arguingthatitwaserrorforthedistrictcourttoapplysentenceenhancementsbasedsolelyonfactscontainedintheirrespective 

### NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1Nos.091478,091979 Page2

1 Maximowasdescribedasa“leaderandorganizer”oftheconspiracyfromlate2006throughJune19,2008,whoactedastheprimarycontactpersonformanycustomersanddirectednumerousrunnersintheconspiracy.Efrainwasdescribedasanother“leader ”whoworkedwithMaximo,actedasaprimarycontactforcustomerswhenMaximotraveledtoMexico,anddirectednumerousrunnersaswell.PresentenceInvestigationReports(“PSRs”),becausethosefactswerenotsupportedbysufficientevidence.BecauseMaximoandEfrainhavewaivedthisargument,andbecausethedistrictcourtwasentitledtorelyonuncontestedfactualfindingsintheirPSRs,weaffirmboth
sentences.

I.BACKGROUNDMaximoandEfrainPinedaBuenaventurawereleadersofalargecocainetraffickingringinJeffersonCounty,Wisconsin.InJune2008,followinganextensiveundercoverinvestigationinvolvingconfidentialinformants,controlleddrugpurchases,andwiretaps,searchwarrantswereexecutedatMaximoandEfrain’sresidencesaswellasatastoragelockerrentedby Maximo. AtMaximo’sresidence,policerecoveredcocaine,a.357DesertEaglehandgun,anddrugdistributionparaphernalia.AtEfrain’sresidence,policerecoveredcocaine,a.22caliberhandgun,ammunition,$10,581inU.S.currency,drugdistributionparaphernalia,andakeytoaChevroletBlazerownedbyMaximo.Inthestorageunit,policediscoveredMaximo’sChevroletBlazerinwhich$59,000inU.S.currencyand599gramsofcocainewereconcealed.Drugs,money,andotheritemsrelatedtotheconspiracywerealsofoundatvariousotherlocationssearchedinconnectionwiththeinvestigation.Maximo,Efrain,andnumerouscoconspirators—mostlylowerlevel runners—wereindicted.MaximoandEfraineachpledguiltytoonecountofconspiringtopossesswithintenttodistributefivekilogramsormoreofcocaine, inviolationof21U.S.C.§841(a)(1).MaximoandEfrain’sPSRsinvolvedthesamecalculations.Bothhadbaseoffenselevelsof32basedonrelevantconductinvolvingbetween5and15kilogramsofcocaine,perU.S.S.G.§2D1.1(c)(4).EachPSRrecommendedtwoenhancements:atwolevelincreasebasedonthefirearmsfoundattheirrespectiveresidencesduringexecutionofthesearchwarrantsperU.S.S.G.§2D1.1(b)(1),andafourlevelincreaseforplayingleade r/organizerrolesintheconspiracyperU.S.S.G.§3B1.1(a),resultinginanadjustedoffenselevelof38. 1 AfterathreeleveldownwardadjustmentforacceptanceofresponsibilitypursuanttoU.S.SG.§3E1.1(a),eachhadatotaloffenselevelof35.Bothfacedamandatorystatutoryrangeof10yearstolife,21U.S.C§841(b)(1)(A),andtherecommendedGuidelinesrangeforeachwas168210months.

BothMaximoandEfrainfiledwrittenobjectionstotheirrespective PSRs.NeitherchallengedthevalidityofthefactscontainedinthePSRs,butinsteadchallengedthelegalimportofthoseNos.091478,091979 Page3

2 Efrain,forexample,arguedthat“[t]hefactscontainedwithinthePSRareinsufficient”tosupportafindingthathewasaleaderintheconspiracy,buthedidnotdisputethefactsthemselves.Similarly,MaximoarguedthatthefactsinhisPSRwerelegallyinsufficienttoestablishtheenhancementshefaced,buthedidnotarguethatthefactsthemselveslackedsufficientevidentiarysupport.3 Inthecourseofmakingthefindingthata leader/organizerenhancementwaswarrantedforEfrain,thedistrictcourtappearstohavemistakenlyreferredtotwoindividualshedirectedinarelatedcaseinwhichhewasanunindictednamedcoconspirator.Thismistakewasinconsequential.Itisclearthattheconspiracyinthiscaseinvolvedatleastfiveparticipants,andotherfindingsthejudgemadebasedonfactsinthePSRindependentlysupportedtheconclusionthatEfrainwasanorganizerorleaderofthisconspiracyunderthe§3B1.1(a)factors.See§3B1.1,cmt.n.4;seealso UnitedStatesv.Wasz ,450F.3d720,729(7thCir.2006)(“nooneof[the§3B1.1]factors isconsidereda prerequisitetotheenhancement”);cf.UnitedStatesv. Diekemper,604F.3d345,3535 4(7thCir.2010)(headcountnotnecessaryforleadershipenhancementinanotherwiseextensiveconspiracy).Andinanyevent,theenhancementdidnotaffectEfrain’sultimatesentence—hereceivedthelowestpossiblestatutoryminimumtermof120months,wellbelowhisrecommendedGuidelinerange.factstotheenhancementsthattheyfaced. 2 Astothe§3B1.1(a)leader/organizerenhancements,bothMaximoandEfrainarguedthatfactsdemonstratedthattheywereonlymanagersorsupervisorsoftheconspiracy,notleaders.A stothe§2D1.1(b)(1)firearmenhancement,MaximoarguedthatthefactscontainedinhisPSRdidnotdemonstratethathehadanyknowledgeofo rcontrolovertheweaponfoundathisresidence.Efraindidnotraiseanyobjectiontohisfirearmenhancementbasedontheweaponfoundathisresidence.Maximowassentencedfirst.AskedathissentencinghearingwhetherhehadanyadditionalobjectionstoanythingcontainedinthePSR,Maximoansweredthathedidnot,butdidsubmitanaffidavitsettingforthadditionalfactshehopedwouldmitigateagainstafindingthathepossessedthefirearmthathadbeenfoundathisresidence.ThegovernmentalsosubmittedadditionalfactssupportingtheconclusionthatthegunwasinfactMaximo’s.Maximothenreiteratedhisargumentsthatneitherthetwolevelfirearmincreasenorthefourlevelorganizerincreasewerewarranted.Thecourtheardarguments,overruledtheobjections,andfoundthatbothenhancementswerewarranted.Itthentookintoconsiderationthe18U.S.C.§3553(a)factorsandsentencedMaximotothehighendofhisGuidelinerange,210months.Efrainwassentencedshortlythereafter.AskedathissentencinghearingwhetherhehadanyadditionalobjectionstoanythingcontainedinhisPSR,Efrainstatedthathedidnot.Thejudgeheardarguments,concludedthattheleaderandweaponenhancementswerewarranted, 3appliedthe§3553(a)factors,andsentencedEfraintothemandatoryminimum120months,Nos.091478,091979 Page4

4 TheGovernmentstatedatoralargumentthatthedisparitybetweenMaximoandEfrain’ssentenceswasduetoaU.S.S.G.§5K1.1substantialassistancemotionthatwasfiledonbehalfofEfrain.whichwasbelowhisrecommendedGuidelinerange. 4

II.ANALYSISMaximoandEfrainmakethesameargumentonappeal:thatitwaserrorforthedistrictcourttorelyonthefactualfindingssetforthintheirPSRsinapplyingse ntencingenhancements,becausethosefindingswerenot,intheirwords,supportedby“evidenceofrecord.”BecauseneitherMaximonorEfrainmadethisargumenttothedistrictcourt,wemustdeterminewhethertheargumenthasbeenwaivedorforfeitedonappeal.SeeUnitedStatesv.Spells ,537F.3d743,747(7thCir.2008).Waiverisanintentional,strategicdecisionnottoassertanargumentandprecludesappellatereview;forfeitureisanaccidentalornegligentomissionandpermitsreviewforplainerror.UnitedStatesv.Canady,578F.3d665,669(7thCir.2009);UnitedStatesv.JaimesJaimes ,406F.3d845,847(7thCir.2005).“Thelinebetweenwaiverandforfeitureisoftenblurry,”andthedistinctionhingesonwhetheradefendant“chose,asamatterofstrategy,nottopresentanargument.”UnitedStatesv.Garcia ,580F.3d528,541(7thCir.2009).Tomakethisdeterminationwemustdrawinferencesfromtherecordandthecircumstances. Id. at542(inquiryrequiressom e“conjecture”and“divin[ing]fromtherecordanintenttoforegoanargument.”).ThegovernmentarguesthatMaximoandEfrainhavewaivedtheargumenttheymakeonappeal,andweagree.MaximoandEfrain’sdecisionsnottochallengethefactscontainedintheirPSRsappeartohavebeenstrategicchoices,notmistakenomissions.BothMaximoandEfrainmadeconsciousdecisionsinthedistrictcourttochallengetheimportofthefactsintheirPSRstothesentencingenhancementstheyfaced,ratherthantochallengethevalidityofthefactsthemselvesinthewaytheynowdoonappeal.SeeUnitedStatesv.Brodie,507F.3d527,531(7thCir.2007)(“[W]henthedefendantselectsamongargumentsasamatterofstrategy,healsowaivesthoseargumenthedecidednottopresent.”); UnitedStatesv.Kindle,453F.3d438,442(7thCir.2006)(“Theremayb esoundstrategicreasonswhyacriminaldefendantwillelecttopursueonesentencingargumentwhilealsochoosingtoforegoanother,andwhenthedefendantselectsasamatterofstrategy,healsowaivesthoseargumentshedecidednottopresent.”).Additionally,attheirrespectivesentencinghearings,bothMaximoandEfrainwereaskediftheyhadfurtherobjectionstotheirPSRs,andeachstatedontherecordthathedidnot.SeeGarcia ,580F.3dat542(findingwaiverwheredefendantstatedhehadnofurtherobjectionstoPSR);Brodie,507F.3dat532(same);UnitedStatesv.Staples ,202F.3d992,995(7thCir.2000)(same).Whileadefendant’sstatementthathehasnofurtherobjectionsdoesnotautomaticallyNos.091478,091979 Page5

5 Maximo’ssubmissionofanaffidavitathissentencinghearingpresentingadditionalfactsrelatedtohis§2D1.1(b)(1)enhancementfurthersupportsthefindingofwaiver.Thisaffidavitindicatesaconsciouschoicetosupplementthefacts inthePSRrather thantochallengetheirevidentiarybasisinthewayhenowdoes.constituteawaiverofanylaterargumentrelatedtothePSR,seeJaimesJaimes ,406F.3dat848,herethedefendants’statementstothateffectdosupportafindingofwaivergiventhecircumstances.MaximoandEfraincouldhaveadvancedthefundamentalobjectiontotheirPSRsthattheynowbothmake—thatfindingsinaPSRshouldbesupportedby,intheirterms,“evidenceofrecord”—butbothlawyerschoseinsteadtoreiterateandelaborateonthespecificargumentstheyhadmadeintheirwrittenobjections. 5 Theconclusionthatthesechoiceswerestrategic,andnotnegligent,isbuttressedbythefactthatbothMaximoandEfrainwerepoisedtobenefitfromdownwardadjustmentsforacceptanceofresponsibility,andchallengingthevalidityofthefactsintheirPSRscouldhaveputthoseadjustmentsinjeopardy.SeeUnitedStatesv.Salem ,597F.3d877,890(7thCir.2010)(waiverwheredefendantmadeapparentstrategicchoicenottodisputerelevantconductinPSRwhendoingsomighthavejeopardizedreductionforacceptanceofresponsibility);seealsoUnitedStatesv.Rosenberg,585F.3d355,358(7thCir.2009)(same).WefindthatMaximoandEfrainhavewaivedtheirchallengetotheaccuracyorvalidityofthefactualfindingscontainedintheirrespectivePSRs.Evenifweweretofindthattheargumentwasmerelyforfeited,MaximoandEfrainstillcouldnotprevail.ItwasnoterrorforthedistrictcourttorelyonfactsinthePSRindeterminingMaximoandEfrain’ssentences.Evidentiarystandardsatsentencingarenotasstringentasthoseattrial,seeUnitedStatesv.Taylor,72F.3d533,543(7thCir.1995)
,andadistrictcourtmayrelyonfactsinthePSRatsentencingsolongastheyarebasedonsufficientlyreliableinformation.SeeUnitedStatesv.Are,590F.3d499,521(7thCir.2009)(“Indeterminingwhetheradefendantisanorganizerorleader,the districtcourtneednotrelysolelyonadmissibleevidence.”);UnitedStatesv.Artley,489F.3d813,821(7thCir.2007);seealso U.S.S.G.§6A1.3.Itisthedefendant’sburdentoshow thatthePSRisinaccurateorunreliable.UnitedStatesv.Turner,604F.3d381,385(7thCir.2010).And“whenadefendanthasfailedtoproduceanyevidencecallingthereport’saccuracyintoques tion,adistrictcourtmayrelyentirelyonthePSR.”Taylor,72F.3dat547.Here,MaximoandEfrain’sPSRssetforthfactsrelevanttothesentenceenhancementstheyfaced:Maximo’sPSRcontainedfactsshowingthathewasatthetopoftheconspiracy’shierarchyandthatafirearmwasfoundnexttococaineinaclosetinhisresidence;Efrain’sPSRcontainedfactsshowingthathehadarrangedtobuycocainefromsuppliers,hadanumberofcoconspiratorsworkingunderhim,andhadafirearminhishome.MaximoandEfrainfiledobjectionschallengingthesignificanceofthesefactstotheenhancementstheyfaced,butneitheradvancedanywholesaleobjectiontothefundamentalreliabilityofthesefactsinthewaytheynowdoonappeal.AndMaximo,forhispart,suppliedadditionalfactstothecourtrelevanttohisgunenhancement,whichthedistrictjudgetookintoNos.091478,091979 Page6
considerationinadditiontothoseinhisPSRbeforeruling(thusMaximo’scontentionthatthedistrictjudgebasedherfindings“solely”onclaims inhisPSRisnotaccurate).Itwasproperforthedistrictcourttorelyonfactsi nthedefendants’respectivePSRsi ndeterminingtheir
sentences.SeeTurner, 604F.3dat385;Artley,489F.3dat821.Thedefendants’briefsbothciteasinglecase,UnitedStatesv.Hudson ,129F.3d994,995(8thCir.1997),tosupporttheirargument.There,theEighthCircuithel dthatadistrictcourt’srelianceonaPSR’sfindingthatthedefendanthadpossessedafirearm,withoutanyadditionalevidence,wasclearlyerroneous.Id. Evenitwereacontrollingcaseinthiscircuit,Hudsonisnohelptothedefendantsbecauseitisinapplicable.InHudson ,thedefendantactuallyobjectedtothePSR’sfactualassertionthatagunhadbeenfoundinherautomobile.Id. at994.Here,ashasbeendiscussed,neitherdefendantmadeanyequivalentobjectiontothefactualfindingsintheirrespectivePSRs.

III.CONCLUSION

Thedefendants’sentencesareA FFIRMED

.