Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/710-F-3d-724-7th-Cir-2013-11-3529-United-States-v-Sanchez-597255518
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:54:01+00:00

Document:
Party Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edwin SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney: Michelle Marie Petersen, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Joshua Sachs, Evanston, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Judge Panel: Before KANNE, TINDER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Michelle Marie Petersen, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joshua Sachs, Evanston, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KANNE, TINDER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
After pleading guilty to participating in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, Edwin Sanchez was sentenced to 262 months of incarceration and five years of supervised release. His punishment took into account a new sentencing enhancement for a defendant who " maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance." U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). Sanchez now appeals his sentence. He contends that applying the enhancement to him violated the ex post facto clause of the Constitution or was otherwise an incorrect application of the law. He also challenges his sentence on various procedural and substantive grounds. We do not find any error, however, and therefore affirm Sanchez's sentence.
In mid-2007, Edwin Sanchez began participating in a large drug conspiracy. He linked up with Carlos Gascar-Corona, a drug distributor with ties to the Mexican drug cartel La Familia Michoacana. Gascar-Corona would provide Sanchez with cocaine at no cost but under the proviso that Sanchez would turn over the money after the drugs sold. Given this arrangement, Gascar-Corona needed confidence in Sanchez. So, he initially provided Sanchez with two or three kilograms of cocaine at a time. Once Sanchez proved he could sell that quantity, the size of the shipments increased. Gascar-Corona started giving Sanchez twenty to thirty kilograms at a time. Sometimes, he provided as much as forty kilograms. Sanchez sold cocaine for Gascar-Corona until June or July 2009. During that approximately two-year period, Gascar-Corona sold nearly $2.5 million worth of drugs, and Sanchez was his largest wholesaler.
By August 2009, the Drug Enforcement Agency had caught on. They arrested Sanchez, but his girlfriend's father posted bail a month later. Gascar-Corona was also arrested. While waiting for the government to bring charges, both Sanchez and Gascar-Corona became informants. Sanchez wore a wire and provided other information, but his tips did not lead to any new arrests, nor did they materially advance existing investigations. Gascar-Corona's information, in contrast, led to the arrest of a high-ranking drug-dealer in Mexico, whom the Mexican government later agreed to extradite to the United States.
In April 2010, a grand jury indicted Sanchez for conspiring to possess, with intent to distribute, more than five kilograms of a cocaine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Sanchez pled guilty on April 12, 2011. He did not sign a written plea agreement.
The PSR recommended a total offense level of thirty-seven. This recommendation included a two-point increase for a defendant who " maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance." U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). Sanchez objected to this enhancement for two reasons. First, he claimed that applying the enhancement to him violated the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution. He based that argument on the fact that the enhancement did not become effective until November 1, 2010, over a year after he committed his offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) & app. C. amend. 748 (Nov. 1, 2010). Second, Sanchez argued that the enhancement, as written, did not apply to him. He claimed that he did not maintain the premises, and, even if he did, he did not do so for the purpose of selling drugs. The district court overruled the objection on both grounds, adopted the PSR's factual findings, and applied the sentencing enhancement to Sanchez.
On October 25, 2011, the district court sentenced Sanchez to 262 months of incarceration, followed by five years of supervised release. This sentence represented the minimum penalty recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines. As of this writing, Gascar-Corona has yet to be sentenced, although his plea agreement recommends a sentence of 126 months. Sanchez timely filed a notice of appeal regarding his sentence on November 8, 2011.
sentencing enhancement found in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), as applied to him, violates the ex post facto clause. Second, he also renews his claim that the enhancement, even if it could be constitutionally applied to him, simply does not apply, given the facts of his case. Third, Sanchez argues that the district court committed a procedural error by not considering the disparity with Gascar-Corona's potential sentence. Finally, he argues that the court committed a substantive error by imposing an unreasonable sentence in light of Sanchez's cooperation with the government. We address each of these arguments in turn.
The Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3. Sanchez claims that, when applied to him, the new sentencing enhancement found in § 2D1.1(b)(12) violates that prohibition. The sequence of events is critical to understanding this claim. Sanchez stopped distributing cocaine in June or July 2009, but he did not plead guilty until April 2011. In the intervening time, as part of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Congress mandated that the Sentencing Commission promulgate the enhancement at issue. P.L. 111-220 § 6(2), 124 Stat. 2372, 2373. The Sentencing Commission did so, and the enhancement became effective on November 1, 2010. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) & app. C. amend. 748 (Nov. 1, 2010). Because the enhancement did not take effect until after Sanchez committed his offense, he thus contends that the district court could not apply it to him without violating the ex post facto clause. This claim presents a constitutional question, which we review de novo. Anderson v. Milwaukee County, 433 F.3d 975, 978 (7th Cir.2006).

References: v. 
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 § 9
 § 2
 § 6
 § 2
 v.