United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

ArguedFebruary10,2010

DecidedJuly6,2010

Before

KENNETHF.RIPPLE,CircuitJudge

DANIELA.MANION,CircuitJudge

ANNCLAIREWILLIAMS,CircuitJudge

Nos.091478,091979

UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,

PlaintiffAppellee,

v.

MAXIMOPINEDABUENAVENTURAand

EFRAINPINEDABUENAVENTURA,

DefendantsAppellants.

AppealsfromtheUnitedStates

DistrictCourtfortheWestern

DistrictofWisconsin.

No.08CR100

BarbaraB.Crabb,

Judge.

ORDER

BrothersandcodefendantsMaximoandEfrainPinedaBuenaventuraeachpledguiltyto

conspiringtopossesswithintenttodistributefivekilogramsormoreofcocaine,inviolation

of21U.S.C.§841(a)(1).Maximowassentencedto210months’imprisonment,andEfrainwas

sentencedto120months.Bothnowappealtheirsentences,arguingthatitwaserrorforthe

districtcourttoapplysentenceenhancementsbasedsolelyonfactscontainedintheirrespective

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
Nos.091478,091979 Page2

1 Maximowasdescribedasa“leaderandorganizer”oftheconspiracyfromlate2006through

June19,2008,whoactedastheprimarycontactpersonformanycustomersanddirected

numerousrunnersintheconspiracy.Efrainwasdescribedasanother“leader”whoworked

withMaximo,actedasaprimarycontactforcustomerswhenMaximotraveledtoMexico,and

directednumerousrunnersaswell.

PresentenceInvestigationReports(“PSRs”),becausethosefactswerenotsupportedby

sufficientevidence.BecauseMaximoandEfrainhavewaivedthisargument,andbecausethe

districtcourtwasentitledtorelyonuncontestedfactualfindingsintheirPSRs,weaffirmboth

sentences.

I.BACKGROUND

MaximoandEfrainPinedaBuenaventurawereleadersofalargecocainetraffickingringin

JeffersonCounty,Wisconsin.InJune2008,followinganextensiveundercoverinvestigation

involvingconfidentialinformants,controlleddrugpurchases,andwiretaps,searchwarrants

wereexecutedatMaximoandEfrain’sresidencesaswellasatastoragelockerrentedby

Maximo.AtMaximo’sresidence,policerecoveredcocaine,a.357DesertEaglehandgun,and

drugdistributionparaphernalia.AtEfrain’sresidence,policerecoveredcocaine,a.22caliber

handgun,ammunition,$10,581inU.S.currency,drugdistributionparaphernalia,andakeyto

aChevroletBlazerownedbyMaximo.Inthestorageunit,policediscoveredMaximo’s

ChevroletBlazerinwhich$59,000inU.S.currencyand599gramsofcocainewereconcealed.

Drugs,money,andotheritemsrelatedtotheconspiracywerealsofoundatvariousother

locationssearchedinconnectionwiththeinvestigation.

Maximo,Efrain,andnumerouscoconspirators—mostlylowerlevelrunners—were

indicted.MaximoandEfraineachpledguiltytoonecountofconspiringtopossesswithintent

todistributefivekilogramsormoreofcocaine,inviolationof21U.S.C.§841(a)(1).Maximo

andEfrain’sPSRsinvolvedthesamecalculations.Bothhadbaseoffenselevelsof32basedon

relevantconductinvolvingbetween5and15kilogramsofcocaine,perU.S.S.G.§2D1.1(c)(4).

EachPSRrecommendedtwoenhancements:atwolevelincreasebasedonthefirearmsfound

attheirrespectiveresidencesduringexecutionofthesearchwarrantsperU.S.S.G.§2D1.1(b)(1),

andafourlevelincreaseforplayingleader/organizerrolesintheconspiracyperU.S.S.G.§

3B1.1(a),resultinginanadjustedoffenselevelof38.1

Afterathreeleveldownwardadjustment

foracceptanceofresponsibilitypursuanttoU.S.SG.§3E1.1(a),eachhadatotaloffenselevelof

35.Bothfacedamandatorystatutoryrangeof10yearstolife,21U.S.C§841(b)(1)(A),andthe

recommendedGuidelinesrangeforeachwas168210months.

BothMaximoandEfrainfiledwrittenobjectionstotheirrespectivePSRs.Neitherchallenged

thevalidityofthefactscontainedinthePSRs,butinsteadchallengedthelegalimportofthose
Nos.091478,091979 Page3

2

Efrain,forexample,arguedthat“[t]hefactscontainedwithinthePSRareinsufficient”to

supportafindingthathewasaleaderintheconspiracy,buthedidnotdisputethefacts

themselves.Similarly,MaximoarguedthatthefactsinhisPSRwerelegallyinsufficientto

establishtheenhancementshefaced,buthedidnotarguethatthefactsthemselveslacked

sufficientevidentiarysupport.

3

Inthecourseofmakingthefindingthataleader/organizerenhancementwaswarrantedfor

Efrain,thedistrictcourtappearstohavemistakenlyreferredtotwoindividualshedirectedin

arelatedcaseinwhichhewasanunindictednamedcoconspirator.Thismistakewas

inconsequential.Itisclearthattheconspiracyinthiscaseinvolvedatleastfiveparticipants,

andotherfindingsthejudgemadebasedonfactsinthePSRindependentlysupportedthe

conclusionthatEfrainwasanorganizerorleaderofthisconspiracyunderthe§3B1.1(a)factors.

See§3B1.1,cmt.n.4;seealso UnitedStatesv.Wasz,450F.3d720,729(7thCir.2006)(“nooneof

[the§3B1.1]factorsisconsideredaprerequisitetotheenhancement”);cf.UnitedStatesv.

Diekemper,604F.3d345,35354(7thCir.2010)(headcountnotnecessaryforleadership

enhancementinanotherwiseextensiveconspiracy).Andinanyevent,theenhancementdid

notaffectEfrain’sultimatesentence—hereceivedthelowestpossiblestatutoryminimumterm

of120months,wellbelowhisrecommendedGuidelinerange.

factstotheenhancementsthattheyfaced.2

Astothe§3B1.1(a)leader/organizerenhancements,

bothMaximoandEfrainarguedthatfactsdemonstratedthattheywereonlymanagersor

supervisorsoftheconspiracy,notleaders.Astothe§2D1.1(b)(1)firearmenhancement,

MaximoarguedthatthefactscontainedinhisPSRdidnotdemonstratethathehadany

knowledgeoforcontrolovertheweaponfoundathisresidence.Efraindidnotraiseany

objectiontohisfirearmenhancementbasedontheweaponfoundathisresidence.

Maximowassentencedfirst.Askedathissentencinghearingwhetherhehadanyadditional

objectionstoanythingcontainedinthePSR,Maximoansweredthathedidnot,butdidsubmit

anaffidavitsettingforthadditionalfactshehopedwouldmitigateagainstafindingthathe

possessedthefirearmthathadbeenfoundathisresidence.Thegovernmentalsosubmitted

additionalfactssupportingtheconclusionthatthegunwasinfactMaximo’s.Maximothen

reiteratedhisargumentsthatneitherthetwolevelfirearmincreasenorthefourlevelorganizer

increasewerewarranted.Thecourtheardarguments,overruledtheobjections,andfoundthat

bothenhancementswerewarranted.Itthentookintoconsiderationthe18U.S.C.§3553(a)

factorsandsentencedMaximotothehighendofhisGuidelinerange,210months.

Efrainwassentencedshortlythereafter.Askedathissentencinghearingwhetherhehadany

additionalobjectionstoanythingcontainedinhisPSR,Efrainstatedthathedidnot.Thejudge

heardarguments,concludedthattheleaderandweaponenhancementswerewarranted,3

appliedthe§3553(a)factors,andsentencedEfraintothemandatoryminimum120months,
Nos.091478,091979 Page4

4 TheGovernmentstatedatoralargumentthatthedisparitybetweenMaximoandEfrain’s

sentenceswasduetoaU.S.S.G.§5K1.1substantialassistancemotionthatwasfiledonbehalf

ofEfrain.

whichwasbelowhisrecommendedGuidelinerange.4

II.ANALYSIS

MaximoandEfrainmakethesameargumentonappeal:thatitwaserrorforthedistrictcourt

torelyonthefactualfindingssetforthintheirPSRsinapplyingsentencingenhancements,

becausethosefindingswerenot,intheirwords,supportedby“evidenceofrecord.”Because

neitherMaximonorEfrainmadethisargumenttothedistrictcourt,wemustdetermine

whethertheargumenthasbeenwaivedorforfeitedonappeal.SeeUnitedStatesv.Spells,537

F.3d743,747(7thCir.2008).Waiverisanintentional,strategicdecisionnottoassertan

argumentandprecludesappellatereview;forfeitureisanaccidentalornegligentomissionand

permitsreviewforplainerror.UnitedStatesv.Canady,578F.3d665,669(7thCir.2009);United

Statesv.JaimesJaimes,406F.3d845,847(7thCir.2005).“Thelinebetweenwaiverandforfeiture

isoftenblurry,”andthedistinctionhingesonwhetheradefendant“chose,asamatterof

strategy,nottopresentanargument.”UnitedStatesv.Garcia,580F.3d528,541(7thCir.2009).

Tomakethisdeterminationwemustdrawinferencesfromtherecordandthecircumstances.

Id.at542(inquiryrequiressome“conjecture”and“divin[ing]fromtherecordanintentto

foregoanargument.”).

ThegovernmentarguesthatMaximoandEfrainhavewaivedtheargumenttheymakeon

appeal,andweagree.MaximoandEfrain’sdecisionsnottochallengethefactscontainedin

theirPSRsappeartohavebeenstrategicchoices,notmistakenomissions.BothMaximoand

Efrainmadeconsciousdecisionsinthedistrictcourttochallengetheimportofthefactsintheir

PSRstothesentencingenhancementstheyfaced,ratherthantochallengethevalidityofthe

factsthemselvesinthewaytheynowdoonappeal.SeeUnitedStatesv.Brodie,507F.3d527,531

(7thCir.2007)(“[W]henthedefendantselectsamongargumentsasamatterofstrategy,healso

waivesthoseargumenthedecidednottopresent.”);UnitedStatesv.Kindle,453F.3d438,442

(7thCir.2006)(“Theremaybesoundstrategicreasonswhyacriminaldefendantwillelectto

pursueonesentencingargumentwhilealsochoosingtoforegoanother,andwhenthe

defendantselectsasamatterofstrategy,healsowaivesthoseargumentshedecidednotto

present.”).Additionally,attheirrespectivesentencinghearings,bothMaximoandEfrainwere

askediftheyhadfurtherobjectionstotheirPSRs,andeachstatedontherecordthathedidnot.

SeeGarcia,580F.3dat542(findingwaiverwheredefendantstatedhehadnofurtherobjections

toPSR);Brodie,507F.3dat532(same);UnitedStatesv.Staples,202F.3d992,995(7thCir.2000)

(same).Whileadefendant’sstatementthathehasnofurtherobjectionsdoesnotautomatically
Nos.091478,091979 Page5

5

Maximo’ssubmissionofanaffidavitathissentencinghearingpresentingadditionalfacts

relatedtohis§2D1.1(b)(1)enhancementfurthersupportsthefindingofwaiver.Thisaffidavit

indicatesaconsciouschoicetosupplementthefactsinthePSRratherthantochallengetheir

evidentiarybasisinthewayhenowdoes.

constituteawaiverofanylaterargumentrelatedtothePSR,seeJaimesJaimes,406F.3dat848,

herethedefendants’statementstothateffectdosupportafindingofwaivergiventhe

circumstances.MaximoandEfraincouldhaveadvancedthefundamentalobjectiontotheir

PSRsthattheynowbothmake—thatfindingsinaPSRshouldbesupportedby,intheirterms,

“evidenceofrecord”—butbothlawyerschoseinsteadtoreiterateandelaborateonthespecific

argumentstheyhadmadeintheirwrittenobjections.5

Theconclusionthatthesechoiceswere

strategic,andnotnegligent,isbuttressedbythefactthatbothMaximoandEfrainwerepoised

tobenefitfromdownwardadjustmentsforacceptanceofresponsibility,andchallengingthe

validityofthefactsintheirPSRscouldhaveputthoseadjustmentsinjeopardy.SeeUnited

Statesv.Salem,597F.3d877,890(7thCir.2010)(waiverwheredefendantmadeapparent

strategicchoicenottodisputerelevantconductinPSRwhendoingsomighthavejeopardized

reductionforacceptanceofresponsibility);seealsoUnitedStatesv.Rosenberg,585F.3d355,358

(7thCir.2009)(same).WefindthatMaximoandEfrainhavewaivedtheirchallengetothe

accuracyorvalidityofthefactualfindingscontainedintheirrespectivePSRs.

Evenifweweretofindthattheargumentwasmerelyforfeited,MaximoandEfrainstill

couldnotprevail.ItwasnoterrorforthedistrictcourttorelyonfactsinthePSRin

determiningMaximoandEfrain’ssentences.Evidentiarystandardsatsentencingarenotas

stringentasthoseattrial,seeUnitedStatesv.Taylor,72F.3d533,543(7thCir.1995),anda

districtcourtmayrelyonfactsinthePSRatsentencingsolongastheyarebasedonsufficiently

reliableinformation.SeeUnitedStatesv.Are,590F.3d499,521(7thCir.2009)(“Indetermining

whetheradefendantisanorganizerorleader,thedistrictcourtneednotrelysolelyon

admissibleevidence.”);UnitedStatesv.Artley,489F.3d813,821(7thCir.2007);seealsoU.S.S.G.

§6A1.3.Itisthedefendant’sburdentoshowthatthePSRisinaccurateorunreliable.United

Statesv.Turner,604F.3d381,385(7thCir.2010).And“whenadefendanthasfailedtoproduce

anyevidencecallingthereport’saccuracyintoquestion,adistrictcourtmayrelyentirelyon

thePSR.”Taylor,72F.3dat547.Here,MaximoandEfrain’sPSRssetforthfactsrelevanttothe

sentenceenhancementstheyfaced:Maximo’sPSRcontainedfactsshowingthathewasatthe

topoftheconspiracy’shierarchyandthatafirearmwasfoundnexttococaineinaclosetinhis

residence;Efrain’sPSRcontainedfactsshowingthathehadarrangedtobuycocainefrom

suppliers,hadanumberofcoconspiratorsworkingunderhim,andhadafirearminhishome.

MaximoandEfrainfiledobjectionschallengingthesignificanceofthesefactstothe

enhancementstheyfaced,butneitheradvancedanywholesaleobjectiontothefundamental

reliabilityofthesefactsinthewaytheynowdoonappeal.AndMaximo,forhispart,supplied

additionalfactstothecourtrelevanttohisgunenhancement,whichthedistrictjudgetookinto
Nos.091478,091979 Page6

considerationinadditiontothoseinhisPSRbeforeruling(thusMaximo’scontentionthatthe

districtjudgebasedherfindings“solely”onclaimsinhisPSRisnotaccurate).Itwasproper

forthedistrictcourttorelyonfactsinthedefendants’respectivePSRsindeterminingtheir

sentences.SeeTurner,604F.3dat385;Artley,489F.3dat821.

Thedefendants’briefsbothciteasinglecase,UnitedStatesv.Hudson,129F.3d994,995(8th

Cir.1997),tosupporttheirargument.There,theEighthCircuitheldthatadistrictcourt’s

relianceonaPSR’sfindingthatthedefendanthadpossessedafirearm,withoutanyadditional

evidence,wasclearlyerroneous.Id.Evenitwereacontrollingcaseinthiscircuit,Hudsonis

nohelptothedefendantsbecauseitisinapplicable.InHudson,thedefendantactuallyobjected

tothePSR’sfactualassertionthatagunhadbeenfoundinherautomobile.Id.at994.Here,

ashasbeendiscussed,neitherdefendantmadeanyequivalentobjectiontothefactualfindings

intheirrespectivePSRs.

III.CONCLUSION

Thedefendants’sentencesareAFFIRMED.