08-5337 -cr

Un i t edSt at es v. C ott o-Lop ez 1 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 4 S UM M ARY OR DER 5 6 R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . CI T AT I ON T O A 7 S UM M ARY ORDE R FI L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY 8 FED ERA L R U LE O F A PPELLA TE PR O C EDU R E 32 . 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. W H EN 9 C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A P A R T Y M U ST C I TE 10 E I T HE R T HE F E D E RAL A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON 11 “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE A COPY O F I T O N ANY 12 P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . 13 1 4 A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for the Second C i r cui t , hel d at 1 5 the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed S t at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew 1 6 Y ork, on the 1 dayof J une, tw o thous and t en. st 17 1 8 P R E S E N T : J O N O . N E W M A N , 1 9 J O H N M . W A L K E R , J R .,

GE RA RD E
. L YNC H, 20 21 C i r cui tJudges
. 22

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 23 24 2 5 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel l ee , 26 v. N o. 08- 5337- cr 27 28 EDU AR DO CO TTO- LOPEZ, 29 D e fen da n t-Ap

p e lla n t. 30 31 32
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- 33 3 4 FO R A PPE L L A N T : G eor gi a J
. H i nde, N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork, on s ubm i s s i on. 35 3 6 F O R A P P E L L E E : P ree t B h ara ra, U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne yfo r th e S o u thern 3 7 D istric t o f N e w Y o rk , (Je ss ica A . M a se lla, K a th e rin e P o lk 3 8 Fai l l a, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney s , on the br i ef) , N ew 3 9 Y ork, N ew Y ork, on s ubm i s s i on. 4 0 A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk 4 1 (D eb o rah A
. B att s, Ju d g e). 4 2 UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND2 1 D E C R E E D that the cas e i s R E M A N D E D t o the di s tr i ct court w i th i ns truct i ons t o vaca t e the 2 ju d g m e n t an d re -se n ten c e th e d e f e n d a n t. 3 E duar do C ot t o- L opez appeal s fr om a s ent ence of 87 m onths i n pr i s on i m pos ed for 4 a convi ct i on, fol l ow i ng a gui l typl ea, of cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e and pos s es s w i th the 5 in te n t to d is tr ib u te m o re th a n f iv e k ilo g ra m s o f

c o c a in e in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6
. 6 H e ar gues her e thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n cal cul at i ng hi s advi s orys ent enci ng 7 gui del i nes r ange byfai l i ng t o gr anthi m a dow nw ar d adj us tm entas a mi nororm i ni m al 8 part i ci pan tpu rs uan tt o U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3 B 1. 2. B ecause the di stri ctcou rt ’s fai l ure t o ad dress 9 C o tto -L o p e z ’s a rg u m e n t f o r a ro le a d

ju stm e n t lea v e s u s u n a b le m e a n in g f u llyto re v iew its 1 0 i m pl i ci tfi ndi ng thathe w as nota mi nororm i ni m al part i ci pant , w e r emand t he ca s e t o the 1 1 di s tr i ctcourtforr e- s ent enci ng. 1 2 O n the fa ct s as pr es ent ed byC ot t o- L opez, w hi ch the governm entdoes notdi s put e, 1 3 C o tto -L o p e z h a s p re se n ted a stro n g a rg u m e n t f o r a ro le a d

ju stm e n t. A t th e tim e o f th is 1 4 o f

f e n s e , C o tto -L o p e z w a s tw e n ty-o n e y e a rs o ld w ith n o p ri o r c ri m in a l r e c o rd o f a n yk in d
. 1 5 A thi s gui l typl ea a l l ocut i on and i n hi s s ent enci ng s ubm i s s i ons , C ot t o- L opez s t at ed thathe 1 6 s pentthe ni ghtbefor e hi s arr es tatthe hous e of M ar gar i t o Pi neda, hi s eventual co1 7 defe ndant , a forty - fi ve y earol d fami l yfr i end w ho had hel ped hi m m ove fr om Puer t o R i co 1 8 to N e w Y o rk a n d p ro v id e d h im w ith f o o d a n d lo d g in g sin c e h is a rriv a l. P in e d a o f f e re d to 1 9 gi ve C ot t o- L opez a r i de t o C ot t o- L opez’ s gi r l fr i end’ s hous e i n N ew Y ork C i ty , buton the 2 0 w ayPi neda r ece i ved a c al l fr om an unknow n s our ce, and dr ove t o an apa r tm entthat 2 1 C ot t o- L opez ha d nevervi s i t ed. Pi neda a s ked C ot t o- L opez t o fet ch a s ui t cas e fr om the3 1 apartm entand br i ng i tdow ns t ai r s t o the ca r . C ot t o- L opez, w ho had no pr i orknow l edge 2 thatthe err and w oul d i nvol ve i l l egal act i vi ty , obey ed. W hen he not i ced how heavythe 3 s ui t cas e w as , he r eal i zed thathe w as “pr obabl ypi cki ng up nar cot i cs . ” C ot t o- L opez 4 b r o u g h tth e s u i t c a s e d o w n t o th e c a r , a n d h e l p e d P i n e d a p a c k th e c o n t e n t s , s o m e tw e n ty5 fiv e k il o g ram s o f c o ca ine, i n to a h idd en co m p artm en t i n P ined a’s c ar. A lth o u g h there 6 w as no pr i oragr eementthatC ot t o- L opez w oul d be pai d forhi s tr oubl e, ats om e poi nt 7 d u ri n g th e tr a n s a c tio n , P in e d a p ro m is e d to p a yh im a n u n s p e c if ie d a m o u n t o f

m o n e y . 8 Shor t l yther eaf

t er , both m en w er e arr es t ed. 9 T he Pr es ent ence R eport( “PSR ”) pr epar ed bythe Pr obat i on O ffi ce s t at ed that 1 0 C o tto -L o p e z q u a lif ie d f o r “ s a f e ty v a lv e ” re lie f

f ro m a te n -ye a r s ta tu to ry m in im u m , a 1 1 fi ndi ng the governm ents uppor t ed, and a dow nw ar d adj us tm entforacc ept ance of 1 2 r e s p o n s i b i l i ty. D e s p i t e th e s e r e d u c t i o n s , a n d h i s c o m p l e t e l a c k o f a n y c r i m i n a l h i s t o ry, 1 3 the quant i tyof drugs he r etr i eved f r om the apa r tm entr es ul t ed i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 29 1 4 and a r ecomm ended s ent enci ng r ange of 87 t o 108 m onths
. C ot t o- L opez’ s att orney 1 5 obj ect ed t o the ca l cul at i on i n a w r i t t en s ubm i s s i on, ar gui ng thathe s houl d r ece i ve a 1 6 m i t i gat i ng r ol e adj us tm entforhi s m i ni m al orm i norr ol e i n the cons pi r acy . T he 1 7 governm entoppos ed anym i t i gat i ng r ol e adj us tm ent , and the Pr obat i on O ffi ce w i thout 1 8 e x p la n a tio n o r c o m m e n t d e c lin e d to re c o m m e n d o n e . 1 9 A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , C o tto -L o p e z ’s a tto rn e yb rie f lyb u t sp e c if

ica llyc ited h is 2 0 w r i t t en s ubm i s s i on s eeki ng a mi t i gat i ng r ol e adj us tm ent . A ft era s hor ts t at ementbythe 2 1 governm entoppos i ng the adj us tm ent , the courts t at ed s i m pl ythati t“ac cept [ed] and4 1 adopt [ed] the fa ctual r eci t at i ons ” and gui del i ne ca l cul at i ons i n the PSR , thati thad 2 cons i der ed the r el evants t atut orys ent enci ng fac t or s s etforth i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) , and, 3 fi ndi ng “no r eas on t o departfr om the advi s orys ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange, ” s ent ence d 4 C ot t o- L opez t o 87 m onths i n pr i s on, the bott om of thatr ange. T he courtm ade no 5 m e n tio n o f

e ith e r s id e ’s a rg u m e n ts re g a rd in g th e m itig a tin g ro le a d ju s tm e n t. 6 Sect i on 3B 1. 2 of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes pr ovi des fora four
- l evel 7 dow nw ar d adj us tm enti f the def endantw as a “mi ni m al part i ci pant ” i n the cr i m i nal 8 act i vi ty , a tw o- l evel adj us tm enti f the def endantw as a “mi norpart i ci pant , ” and a thr ee9 le v e l a d

ju s tm e n t if

th e d e f e n d a n t’ s ro le w a s s o m e w h e re in b e tw e e n . U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2
. 1 0 T he “mi ni m al part i ci pant ” adj us tm entappl i es t o defe ndant s “w ho ar e pl ai nl yamong t he 1 1 l eas tcul pabl e of thos e i nvol ved i n the conduc tof a gr oup. U nderthi s pr ovi s i on, the 1 2 defe ndant ’ s l ack of know l edge orunder s t andi ng of the s cope a nd s tructur e of the 1 3 ent erpr i s e and of the ac t i vi t i es of other s i s i ndi cat i ve of a r ol e as m i ni m al part i ci pant . ” 1 4 Id ., c o m m e n t. ( n .4 ); s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . C a s ta n o , 2 3 4 F .3 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 3 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 1 5 A “m i no r part i ci pan t ” i s one w ho i s “l ess cul pab l e than m ostotherpart i ci pan t s, bu tw ho se 1 6 rol e cou l d n ot be descri bed as m i nim al
. ” U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3 B 1. 2, com m ent. (n. 5); see al so 1 7 C ast ano , 23 4 F
. 3d at11 3. H ow ever, “[a] r edu ct i on w i l l no tbe av ai l able s i m plybecau se 1 8 the def

endantpl ay ed a l es s err ol e than hi s co- cons pi r at or s ; t o be el i gi bl e fora r educt i on, 1 9 the def

endant ' s conductm us tbe ‘ m i nor ’ or‘ m i ni m al ’ as compar ed t o the ave r age 2 0 p a rt ic ip a n t in s u c h a c ri m e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . R a h m a n , 1 8 9 F .3 d 8 8 , 1 5 9 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 2 1 A defe ndantm us t“pr ove bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence that[he] i s ent i t l ed t o a [ ]5 1 r ol e adj us tm entunder§ 3B 1. 2 of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , ” C as t ano, 234 F. 3d at113, 2 a n d w e re v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u rt ' s f in d in g to g ra n t o r d e n yth e a d ju s tm e n t f

o r c le a r e rr o r. I d
. 3 “ [ A ] se n ten c in g c o u rt’s a ss e ss m e n t o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s ro le in c rim in a l ac tiv ityis h ig h ly 4 fac t - s peci fi c. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C arpent er , 252 F. 3d 230, 234 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal 5 q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 6 D e sp ite th e d e f e re n c e w e a c c o rd a d istric t co u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n s p e rta in in g to ro le 7 adj us tm ent s , the gene r al rul e that“[w ] hen the s ent enci ng courtr es ol ves a di s put ed i s s ue 8 o f f a c t, i t is re q u ire d to sta te its f in d in g s w ith su f

f icie n t cla rityto p e rm it ap p e llate 9 re v ie w ,” U n ite d S ta te s v . R e e d , 4 9 F .3 d 8 9 5 , 9 0 0 -0 1 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ), s till a p p lie s . 1 0 B e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt m a d e n o e x p licit f in d in g th a t C o tto -L o p e z w a s o r w a s n o t a 1 1 m i nororm i ni m al part i ci pantdes pi t e C ot t o- L opez’ s s ubs t ant i al ar gum entfors uch a 1 2 fi ndi ng, w e conc l ude thatthe s ent enci ng courtdi d nots t at e i t s appar entfi ndi ng r egar di ng 1 3 C ott o-L op ez’s rol e “w i th suff i ci ent cl ari tyt o p erm i tapp el l at e revi ew . ” Id. ; see al so 1 4 U n it ed S tat es v . R o sa, 11 F
. 3 d 3 1 5 , 3 4 4 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 3 ) (va ca ti n g sen tenc e w ith in P S R ’s 1 5 s ugges t ed gui del i nes r ange, w her e di s tr i ctcourtm ade no e xpl i ci tfi ndi ngs addr es s i ng 1 6 d e f

e n d a n t R o d ri g u e z ’s m itig a tin g ro le a d ju s tm e n t a rg u m e n ts ). 1 7 T h e c o u rt’s a d o p tio n o f th e P S R ’s f

in d in g s c a n n o t sa v e th e f a ilu re to m a k e e x p licit 1 8 fi ndi ngs on the r ecor d, beca us e the PSR ’ s ow n fi ndi ng r egar di ng C ot t o- L opez’ s r ol e i t s el f 1 9 cons i s t ed of a bar e conc l us i on w i thoutanal y s i s orexpl anat i on. C f. U ni t ed St at es v. 2 0 J ames, 280 F. 3d 206, 208 ( 2d C i r . 2002) ( “[A ] s ent enci ng j udge s at i s fi es s ect i on 2 1 3553( c) ’ s gener al r equi r ementforr eas ons bys t at i ng, ei therexpl i ci t l yorbyadopt i ng an6 1 adequatel

y ex plai ned anal y s i s i n the PSR , the bas i s forthe adj us t ed off ens e l evel and 2 cr i m i nal hi s t ory . ”) ( emphasi s added)
. B eca us e w e ar e unabl e t o r evi ew m eani ngful l ythe 3 d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s f

i n d i n g th a tCo t t o - L o p e z wa s n o ta mi n o ro rmi n i ma l p a r t i c i p a n t , we 4 re m a n d th e c a se to th e d istric t co u rt. 5 T he l ack of expl anat i on i s tr oubl i ng, beca us e the def endanthas pr es ent ed a s tr ong 6 argum ent for a dow nw ard r ole adj ust m ent. Iti s true that a defend ant w ho served as a 7 drug cour i eri s notaut om at i cal l yent i t l ed t o a § 3B 1. 2 r ol e adj us tm ent . U ni t ed St at es v. 8 G arci a, 92 0 F
. 2d 15 3, 15 5 (2d C i r. 19 90 ) ( “W hil e i n cert ai n cases and on part i cularfact s, 9 a d istric t co u rt m ig h t co n c lu d e th a t a d e f e n d a n t co u rie r w a s ‘s u b sta n tiallyles s c u lp a b le 1 0 than the ave r age pa r t i ci pant ’ and thus m ake a dow nw ar d adj us tm entpur s uantt o § 3B 1. 2, 1 1 thi s concl us i on i s byno m eans m andat ed. ”)
. H ow ever , as s um i ng ar guendo thatC ot t o1 2 L opez c an r eas onabl ybe cl as s i fi ed as a “c our i er , ” hi s r ol e appe ar s t o have be en 1 3 e x c e e d in g ly m o d e s t. 1 4 “I n eval uat i ng a def endant ’ s r ol e, w e l ook t o fac t or s s uch as the natur e of the 1 5 d ef

en d an t’ s relati o n sh ip to the o ther p arti cipa n ts, the im p o rt an ce o f th e d ef en d an t’ s 1 6 act i ons t o the s ucce s s of the ventur e, and the def endant ’ s aw ar enes s of the natur e and 1 7 s cope of

the cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Y u, 285 F. 3d 192, 200 ( 2d C i r . 2002) 1 8 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. A ccor di ng t o C ot t o- L opez’ s undi s put ed ac countof 1 9 the cr i m e, he w as unaw ar e of the exi s t ence of the cons pi r acy , and di d noteven know he 2 0 w as i nvol ved i n anycr i m e atal l unt i l he fe l tthe w ei ghtof the s ui t cas e. “[T] he natur e of 2 1 [C ot t o- L opez’ s ] r el at i ons hi p” t o the co- cons pi r at or s w as nota bus i nes s r el at i ons hi p; he7 1 w a s P in e d a ’s h o u se g u e st a n d h a d n e v e r m e t an yo th e r m e m b e r o f th e c o n sp ira c yp rio r to 2 h is e x c e e d in g lyb rie f p a rticip a tio n . M o re o v e r, C o tto -L o p e z ’s a ss ista n c e to P in e d a in 3 carry i ng the s ui t cas e and he l pi ng t o pack i t s cont ent s i n the ca r ’ s s ecr etcompar tm ent 4 w o u l d n o ts e e m t o h a v e c o n tr i b u t e d m u c h t o th e “ s u c c e s s o f th e v e n tu r e . ” I d
. F i n a l l y, 5 w hi l e i ti s true, as the governm entpoi nt s out , thatthe ave r age drug cons pi r acypart i ci pant 6 gener al l ydoes notknow the ful l s cope of a drug ent erpr i s e, C ot t o- L opez’ s i gnor ance of 7 any cons pi r acypr i ort o hi s few m i nut es of ac t i ve i nvol vementbes peaks a l evel of 8 “ a w a re n e ss o f

th e n a tu re a n d sc o p e o f th e c rim in a l en terp rise ,” id ., th a t is a rg u a b lyw e ll 9 s hor tof thatof the “a ver age” part i ci panti n a cons pi r acyof a s i ze thatw arr ant s a s ent ence 1 0 i n exce s s of s even y ear s i n pr i s on. 1 1 W e h a v e e m p h a siz e d th a t th e “ d e ter m in a tio n [ o f a ro le a d ju stm e n t] is h e a v ily 1 2 depende ntupon the fa ct s of the part i cul arcas e as found bythe di s tr i ctcourt . ” G ar ci a, 1 3 920 F. 2d at155 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. Forthatr eas on, w e have aff i rm ed 1 4 d e c isio n s o f

se n ten c in g c o u rts b o th to g ra n t an d to d e n ym iti g a tin g a d ju stm e n ts to 1 5 defe ndant s w ho coul d be cha r act er i zed a s cour i er s orthe l i ke. See, e. g. , i d. ( uphol di ng 1 6 d en ial o f a m ino r role ad justm en t fo r co u ri er d eli v ering co ca ine f rom a se ll er to a b u y er); 1 7 U ni t ed St at es v. I m t i az, 81 F. 3d 262, 264- 65 ( 2d C i r . 1996) ( fi ndi ng thatr ol e as br oker 1 8 fora her oi n tr ans act i on and del i veryof her oi n fr om buy ert o s el l erm er i t ed deni al of a 1 9 m ino r role ad

justm en t) ; bu t cf. U n it ed S tat es v . R estrep o , 9 3 6 F
. 2 d 6 6 1 , 6 6 5 -68 (2d C ir
. 2 0 1 9 9 1 ) (up h o lding g ran t of m inim al role a d

justm en t i n m o n eylaun d ering sch em e, w h ere8 1 defe ndant s admi t t ed theyunder s t ood the ca s h theyw er e l oadi ng and unl oadi ng w as 2 n arc o ti cs p roc ee d s b u t th eir role w as li m it ed to loa d ing b o x es a n d k ee p ing a loo k o u t) ; 3 U ni t ed St at es v. L opez, 937 F. 2d 716, 727 ( 2d C i r . 1991) ( uphol di ng deni al of m i ni m al 4 ro le a d

ju stm e n t an d g ra n t o f

m in o r ro le a d

ju stm e n t w h e re d e f

e n d a n t k n e w o f

p lan to se ll 5 50 ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne, tr avel ed fr om M i ami t o N ew Y ork t o hel p w i th tr ans act i on, and 6 expec t ed a l ar ge s um of m oneyas paym entfors ervi ces )
. B utpr eci s el ybeca us e of the 7 fa ct-i n tens ive n ature o f th e inq u iry , w e f ind itd ifficu ltto rev iew the d istri ct co u rt ’s 8 d e c i s i o n – a tl e a s ti n a c a s e s u c h a s th i s , wh e r e th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n th e c r i me 9 a p p e a rs s o lim ited – w ith o u t s o me expl anat i on w hythe def endant ’ s r ol e i n the cons pi r acy 1 0 ati s s ue s houl d notbe cons i der ed “mi nor ” or“mi ni m al
. ” 1 1 F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, th e c a se is R E M A N D E D to th e d istric t co u rt, w ith 1 2 i ns truct i ons thati tvaca t e i t s j udgm entand r e- s ent ence C ot t o- L opez a ft erexpl i ci t l yrul i ng 1 3 o n h is a rg u m e n t f o r a m iti g a tin g ro le a d

ju stm e n t. 14 1 5 FOR TH E CO UR T: 1 6 C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt 17 18 19 20