Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/137/1220/605820/
Timestamp: 2020-02-24 13:21:13
Document Index: 11101934

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 846', '§ 1956', '§ 1291', '§ 3742', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3742', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Santiago Cruz Camacho, Defendant-appellant, 137 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 1998) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1998 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Santiago Cruz Camacho, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Santiago Cruz Camacho, Defendant-appellant, 137 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 1998)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 137 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 1998) March 3, 1998
Defendant Santiago Cruz Camacho pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, three counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, eight counts of distribution of methamphetamine, and two counts of money laundering, in respective violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a) (1) and 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (1). The district court sentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of 292 months imprisonment for the drug offenses and 240 months imprisonment for the money laundering offenses. On appeal, Defendant attacks only his sentences, arguing that the district court erroneously: (1) enhanced his sentence four levels on the basis that he was a leader and organizer of a conspiracy involving five or more participants; (2) calculated his base sentence level by improperly determining the amount of methamphetamine attributable to him; and (3) failed to award him a two-level sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We affirm.
The parties' briefs indicate confusion over whether we review the district court's finding that Defendant is an organizer or leader under § 3B1.1(a) de novo or for clear error. Indeed, a review of our precedent reveals cases supporting either position. See United States v. Yarnell, 129 F.3d 1127, 1138 (10th Cir. 1997). For example, we have stated that a district court's conclusion that a defendant is a leader or organizer under § 3B1.1(a) is primarily legal, and therefore reviewed de novo. United States v. Albers, 93 F.3d 1469, 1487 (10th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added) (citing United States v. Brown, 995 F.2d 1493, 1501 (10th Cir. 1993)) (reciting standard of review in relation to conclusion that defendant was supervisor under § 3B1.1(b)). On the other hand, we have held that the "sentencing court's determination that the defendant was an organizer [under § 3B1.1(a) ] is a factual finding subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review." United States v. Levine, 970 F.2d 681, 691 (10th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added); accord United States v. Owens, 70 F.3d 1118, 1127 (10th Cir. 1995); United States v. Knox, 124 F.3d 1360, 1365 (10th Cir. 1997). In light of this apparent conflict, we must determine which line of precedent controls our review in this case.
We have long reviewed sentencing decisions based on a defendant's role in a criminal enterprise under § 3B1.1 for clear error with respect to factual findings and de novo with respect to legal conclusions. E.g. United States v. Baez-Acuna, 54 F.3d 634, 638 (10th Cir. 1995) (Seymour, C.J.). The above cases are in accord with this general principle. The conflict between the two lines of precedent arises over whether a district court's determination that a defendant is a leader or organizer under § 3B1.1(a) is primarily legal or primarily factual. Although we recognize that the four-level enhancement provided for by § 3B1.1(a) is severe and deserves an appropriate level of scrutiny, we believe the role of a defendant as a leader or organizer is "among the sophisticated factual determinations a district court makes which depend upon an assessment of the broad context of the crime." United States v. Valencia, 44 F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, we adhere to our earlier line of cases and review the district court's determination that Defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity involving five or more persons for clear error.2
The standard of review we restate today is in accord with both the guidelines mandate that " [t]he court of appeals ... shall accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and shall give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts," see 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), and the standard applied by a majority of the circuits. See United States v. Graciani, 61 F.3d 70, 75 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that the district court's determination that defendant is leader or organizer is necessarily fact specific and is therefore reviewed for clear error.); United States v. Magana, 118 F.3d 1173, 1203 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Bueno-Sierra, 99 F.3d 375, 380 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Haun, 90 F.3d 1096, 1102 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. Camper, 66 F.3d 229, 231 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Logan, 54 F.3d 452, 456 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Ronning, 47 F.3d 710, 711 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Richardson, 939 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1991); but see United States v. Wisniewski, 121 F.3d 54, 57-58 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that district court's conclusion that defendant is not a manager, supervisor, leader, or organizer involves legal interpretation of sentencing guidelines and is therefore reviewed de novo.).
The burden is on the government to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the facts necessary to establish a defendant's leadership role. United States v. Torres, 53 F.3d 1129, 1142 (10th Cir. 1995). In determining whether the government has proven that a defendant is a leader or organizer, a court may consider, inter alia, "the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices ... the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense ... and the degree of control and authority exercised over others." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), comment. (n. 4). The government does not have to prove that defendant controlled five or more participants.3 Instead, it must prove that five persons participated in the criminal venture, and that Defendant exercised leadership control over at least one person. United States v. Rodriguez, 112 F.3d 374, 377 (8th Cir. 1997); United States v. Valencia, 44 F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Dota, 33 F.3d 1179, 1189 (9th Cir. 1994). Because the criminal enterprise in this case clearly involved more than five persons, if Defendant exercised control consistent with his leadership role over at least one other participant, the district court's enhancement must stand.
Attempting to distinguish controlling Tenth Circuit precedent and relying largely on a case which an en banc Eleventh Circuit has vacated and decided contrary to his position4 , Defendant's final argument is that the district court erroneously refused to reduce his sentence two levels for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). The district court noted that Defendant admitted the facts underlying the crimes charged by the government. The district court refused to reduce Defendant's sentence, however, because it found that Defendant "falsely denied and frivolously contested relevant conduct which the court found to be true." Defendant maintains that the district court's finding is clearly erroneous. We disagree.
The district court has broad discretion to determine whether to award a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3E1.1(a), and we will not disturb its decision absent clearly erroneous findings. United States v. Gassaway, 81 F.3d 920, 922 (10th Cir. 1996). Under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), a district court should reduce a defendant's sentence by two levels " [i]f the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense...." Thus, when a defendant admits the facts necessary to support his conviction, he should generally be awarded a reduction. Where a defendant acts in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility, however, the district court may properly refuse to reduce his sentence. United States v. Contreras, 59 F.3d 1038, 1040-41 (10th Cir. 1995). A "defendant who falsely denies or frivolously contests, relevant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility." Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Defendant and Hernandez involved numerous individuals in their scheme including: Mario Salado, Priscilla Gonzales, Jeff Manning, Nicky Jarnagin, Carie Bolin, Lillian Bean, William Smith, Allen Day, Jan Kennedy, Scott Morgan, Todd Furra, Al Hooper, Reford Alcorn, Kim Hurd, Jimmy Wise, Jesus Navidad, and Miguel Nava
Moreover, even if we believed the district court's conclusion is properly reviewed de novo, we are bound by prior panel decisions in the absence of en banc reconsideration or a supervening Supreme Court decision. Haynes v. Williams, 88 F.3d 898, 901 n. 4 (10th Cir. 1996). "A pertinent corollary to this principle is that when faced with an intra-circuit conflict, a panel should follow earlier, settled precedent over a subsequent deviation therefrom." Id. The cases holding that we review the district court's conclusion that a defendant is a leader or organizer for clear error predate the cases holding that our review is de novo. Thus, we are bound to review for clear error regardless of which standard proves to be the wiser
In United States v. Reid, 911 F.2d 1456, 1465 n. 8 (10th Cir. 1990), we opined that "application of § 3B1.1(a) requires some control, directly or indirectly, over the five participants if the criminal activity is not 'otherwise extensive' ". In 1993, the Sentencing Commission added commentary note 2 to § 3B1.1. The note reads in relevant part: "To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants..." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), comment. (n. 2) (emphasis added). In light of this substantive change to the guidelines, we believe our language in Reid, which was proper in regards to the guidelines in place at that time, is no longer good law. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 42-43, 113 S. Ct. 1913, 1917-18, 123 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1993) (commentary to sentencing guideline, unless inconsistent with plain language of the guideline, is binding on federal courts)
See United States v. Smith, 106 F.3d 350, 351, vacated 112 F.3d 473, on reh'g en banc, 127 F.3d 987 (11th Cir. 1997)