2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-11-2009 

# U SA v . Alex S ant i ago P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1568

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Alex S ant i ag o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1197. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1197NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 1568 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. A L E X S A N T IA G O , A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 06- cr - 00318- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay19, 2009 B e f o re : R E N D E L L a n d G A R T H , C ir c u it J u d g e s , and PA D O V A , D i s t r i ctJ udge*. ( Fi l ed: J une 11, 2009 )

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________ R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. A l ex Sant i ago appe al s hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng t hati ns uffi ci entevi dence s uppor t ed

____________________ * H onor abl e J ohn R . Padova, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .T he D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 23 1, and w e exerci se 1 juri sd ict ion u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a)(1) a n d (a)(2). 2 t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on t hathe w as an “or gani zer , l eade r , m anage r , or s upervi s ori n anycr i m i nal act i vi t y ” underU . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1( c) . B eca us e the D i s t r i ct C o u rt p ro p e rlya p p lied th e G u id e lin e s b a se d o n su f f icie n t ev id e n c e b e f

o re it, w e w ill a f f i r m. S a n tiag o p led g u iltyto “ c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e” 50 gr ams orm or e of “ cr ack” coca i ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. ( A pp. 23) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatSant i ago w as an “or gani zer , l eade r , m anage r , or s u p e r v i s o ri n a n y c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y” u n d e rU . S . S . G . § 3 B 1 . 1 ( c ) a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y, s ent ence d Sant i ago t o t he s t atut or ym i ni m um t erm of 120 m ont hs i n pr i s on. W e r evi ew 1 S a n tia g o ’s s e n te n c e f

o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . S e e U n itedS ta tes v . Se v illa , 541 F. 3d 226, 230- 32 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . O urdeci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), 

### c ri ti c i

ze d on ot he r groundsby Sp earsv. Un ited States , 129 S. Ct. 840 (200 9), in stru c ts a d istric t co u rt to f o llo w a th re e -ste p p ro c e ss to d e ter m in e a n a p p ro p ria te sent ence, w hich i ncludes cal culat i ng a def end ant’ s sent ence u nd er the G uidel i nes, f o rm a llyru lin g o n a n ym o tio n s b yth e p a rties a n d sta tin g o n th e re c o rd w h e th e r it is gr ant i ng a depa r tur e, and pr ovi di ng m eani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) f a c to rs . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Sm al l ey , 5 1 7 F . 3 d 2 0 8 , 2 1 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). S an ti ag o ’s chal l enge f

ocus es on t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t ep one a nal y s i s . Speci fi cal l y , Sant i ago3

cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on of hi s “manager ” s t atus under§ 3B 1. 1( c) r es t ed on hea r s ayevi dence and w as nots uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. W hethera def

endants at i s fi es an aggr avat i ng fac t orunder§ 3B 1. 1 i s a ques t i on of fac t , on w hi ch the governm entbear s t he bur den of pr oof bya pr eponder ance of the e v id e n c e . U

nited S tates v. B rothers , 7 5 F .3 d 8 4 5 , 8 4 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. O rtiz , 878 F. 2d 125, 127 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs s u p p o rt in g a ro le e n h a n c e m e n t f o r c le a r e rr o r, U

ni t ed Stat es v. Helbl i ng , 209 F. 3d 226, 242- 43 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , butexer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of ques t i ons of l aw , i ncl udi ng t he p ro p e r c o n s tru c tio n o f

th e G u id e lin e s , i d. at243, and the admi s s i bi l i t yof hea r s ay e v id e n c e , B rothers , 75 F. 3d at848. Sant i ago’ s fi r s tar gum enti s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s § 3B 1. 1( c) det erm i nat i on r es t ed on i m perm i s s i bl e hea r s ayevi dence . A ts ent enci ng, A gentM ark A ndr as i t es t i fi ed t hatSant i ago us ed “runner s ” t o del i verdrugs t o a D rug E nfor cementA gency( “D E A ”) i nform antdur i ng s ever al contr ol l ed drug buy s . ( A pp. 91) . A ndr as i ’ s t es t i m onyw as based o n inform at i on con vey ed to hi m bydrug tas k fo rce m em bers part i ci pati ng i n these b u y s. (A p p . 9 2 -9 3 ). S a n tiag o c o n ten d s th a t th e tas k f o rc e m e m b e rs’ c o m m u n ica tio n s to A ndr as i cons t i tut e i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ay . H ear s ayevi dence i s admi s s i bl e i n s ent enci ng p ro c e e d in g s, p ro v id e d it h a s “ su f f icie n t in d icia o f

re liab ili tyto su p p o rt its p ro b a b le acc ur acy . ” B rothers , 75 F. 3d at848 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Sci ar r i no , 884 F. 2d 95, 98 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ) ( not i ng t hat“us e of he ar s ayi n m aki ng fi ndi ngs forpurpos es of G ui del i nes4

sent encing v i olat es nei t her the S entenci ng R eform A ctof 1 98 4 n or the D ue P rocess C l aus e, ” butt hatt o avoi d “mi s i nform at i on of cons t i tut i onal m agni tude, ” s uch t es t i m ony m u st h a v e su f

f icie n t in d icia o f

re liab ili ty ); s ee al

s o U . S. S. G . § 6A 1. 3( a) (“[ T ]he co u rt m aycons i derr el evanti nform at i on w i t houtr egar d t o i t s admi s s i bi l i t yundert he rul es of evi dence appl i cabl e att r i al , pr ovi ded thatt he i nform at i on has s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of re lia b ility to s u p p o rt its p ro b a b le a c c u ra c y .” ). H e re , w e h a v e little tro u b le c o n c lu d in g th a t th e tas k f o rc e m e m b e rs’ sta tem e n ts to A nd ras i po sses sed t he requ i si t e deg ree of rel i abil i t y . A s part i ci pan t s i n the transact i on s, t he t as kfor ce mem ber s had r el i abl e fi r s t - hand know l edge of w hetherSant i ago us ed ru n n e rs . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. P aul i no , 9 9 6 F . 2 d 1 5 4 1 , 1 5 4 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) (“A n ag en t’ s r eci t al of eve nt s conce r ni ng di s cus s i ons w i t h a r el i abl e conf i dent i al i nform ant , and r ecol l ect i on of a c onver s at i on r el ay ed t o anotherfede r al agentw orki ng on t he s ame cas e, m e e t th e sta n d a rd o f

m in im u m in d icia o f

re liab ili ty .”). F u rth e r, th e h e a rsa ysta tem e n ts conce r n gener al i nform at i on r athert han part i cul ar i zed f act s , s uch as t he pr eci s e amountof drugs deal t– s peci fi c i nform at i on aboutw hi ch w e have r equi r ed a hi gherdegr ee of re lia b ility. B rothers , 7 5 F .3 d a t 8 4 8 -4 9 ; se e a lso U n itedS ta tes v . P e tty , 982 F. 2d 1365, 1369 ( 9t h C i r . 1993) ( not i ng pr es um pt i ve unr el i abi l i t yof hea r s ayevi dence as t o drug q u a n tity). T h e h e a rs a yd e c la ra n ts h e re – D E A a g e n ts – w e re a ls o c re d ib le . C om pa re U ni t ed Stat es v. R obi ns on , 4 8 2 F . 3 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (find ing that p o li ce o ff icer’s te s tim o n y“ e a s ily p a s s e s ” re lia b ility te s t) , w ith U n itedS ta tes v . Miele , 989 F. 2d 659, 664Sant i ago al s o cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have a ppl i ed the “s afe t yval ve” 2 pr ovi s i ons , 18 U . S. C . § 3553( f) ( 4) and U . S. G . G § 5C 1. 2( a) ( 4) , and gr ant ed an a ddi t i onal t w o- l evel decr eas e i n t he bas e off ens e l evel underU . S. G . G § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 11) , r athert han im p o se th e sta tu to rym in im u m se n ten c e o f 1 2 0 m o n th s. T h e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly concl uded thatt he “s afe t yval ve” pr ovi s i ons w er e i nappl i cabl e, and thati m pos i t i on of the s t atut or ym i ni m um s ent ence w as m andat or y , beca us e Sant i ago w as a managerof cr i m i nal ac ti v ityu n d er § 3 5 5 3 (f)(4) a n d § 5 C 1 . 2 (a)(4). 5 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( fi ndi ng unr el i abl e hea r s ays t at ement s byaddi cti nform antw i t h poor m em ory ). S anti ago do es not i den t i fyanyevidence incon si st ent w i t h A nd ras i ’s assert i on s. See Miele , 9 8 9 F . 2 d at 66 4 (no ti n g that the “ v ast d ispa ri tyb etw ee n H ab era ’s [i nform ant ’ s ] es t i m at e i n t he PSI and the s i gni fi cant l yl ow eres t i m at es he pr ovi ded att he c o - d e f e n d a n t s ’ t r i a l c a s t s d o u b to n t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e P S I ’ s e s t i m a t e ” ) . A c c o r d i n g l y, t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r tp r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d A n d r a s i ’ s t e s t i m o n y. S an ti ag o n ex t argu es th at i n su ff ici en t evid en ce su p p o rt ed the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e t e r mi n a t i o n t h a tS a n t i a g o wa s a “ ma n a g e r ” o f c r i mi n a l a c t i v i t yi n t h e t i me f r a me s peci fi ed i n t he i ndi ctm ent— D ece m ber2005 t o Sept ember2006. H ow ever , codefe ndantJ ul i o C unde t es t i fi ed thatbetw een J ul yand Sept emberof 2006, he and a not her ind ividu al, F laco , “c o o k ed ” a n d d istri b u ted c rac k fo r S an ti ag o . (A p p . 6 4 , 6 6 , 6 8 , 7 0 , 7 2 ). 2 Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatadequa t e evi dence s uppor t ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatSant i ago w as an “or gani zer , l eade r , m anage r , or s upervi s ori n anycr i m i nal act i vi t y ” underU . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1( c) . T he or derof the D i s t r i ct Co u r twi l l b e AF F I RMED .