Opinion ID: 202309
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Escobar's Sentencing

Text: 7 Following conviction, and prior to sentencing, Escobar received his presentence investigation report (PSI or Report) on December 10, 2003. In describing the drug conspiracy for which Escobar was convicted, the Report on the cover page termed it as being a conspiracy to possess and distribute not less than one hundred and fifty (150) kilograms of cocaine, whereas, in fact, the conspiracy charged in the indictment and later confirmed in the jury's special verdict finding was one to possess and distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine, fifty grams or more of cocaine base, and/or one kilogram or more of heroin. The PSI correctly described the charged offense in its discussion of the charge and conviction but used the 150 kilograms of cocaine standard in computing a proposed guidelines sentence. In determining that sentence, the PSI calculated: 1) a base offense level of thirty-eight (38) under USSG § 2D1.1(c) (the PSI expressly derived this offense level from its unexplained supposition that the offense involved not less than one hundred fifty (150) kilograms of cocaine); 2) a two-level enhancement for possession of firearms under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1); and 3) a two-level enhancement for managerial or supervisory role in the offense under USSG § 3B1.1(c). These figures added up to a total offense level of forty-two (42). The total offense level, along with a criminal history category of I, resulted in a proposed guideline sentencing range of 360 months' imprisonment to life. 1 8 At Escobar's sentencing hearing, held on January 23, 2004, the district court began by asking, Counsel, have you read the pre-sentence report? to which counsel for Escobar replied, Yes, Your Honor. The court then addressed defendant, asking, Mr. Escobar, are you aware of the contents of the pre-sentence report? Defendant replied, Yes, and also acknowledged his attorney had translated to him the information contained in the report. 9 The court asked next, Is there anything that needs to be corrected at the time as to the information in the report? Escobar's counsel at first replied, Yes, Your Honor, we did file an objection as to some information —. 2 To this the court reiterated, Any corrections, prior to getting to the objections, any corrections that need—. Escobar's counsel said, No, no corrections at this time, Your Honor, and the court then asked Escobar himself, Is there anything in the report you wish me to correct, to which Escobar responded, No. Like questions were put by the court to government counsel, similarly evoking negative answers. 10 The court then turned to Escobar's counsel, saying, Counsel, you do have an objection to the pre-sentence calculations? Counsel replied, Right, that is correct. . . . Our objection is based on the fact that the pre-sentence report indicates that my client was an organizer, or leader, or manager or supervisor. To this the court replied, Objection is sustained, granted. I will not follow the recommendation of the probation officer for a two-level enhancement. Escobar's counsel then responded: Very well, Your Honor. That would be all as to the objections. 11 The court then enquired, Is there anything you [counsel] would like to state to the court on behalf of your client before I pronounce sentence? 12 Escobar's counsel responded with a plea for a sentence at the lower end of the guidelines, citing Escobar's youth, his father's absence, his residence in a very poor area of Guayama, and his lack of early guidance. Counsel ended by saying, That's the only request that we make, Your Honor, that he be sentenced as to the lower end of the guidelines applicable in this case. 13 The court then heard from Escobar, who asked for forgiveness from his wife and mother for having failed them. 14 Thereafter, government counsel argued against any variation from the findings in the pre-sentence report. She pointed out there was evidence Escobar was an owner of a drug point, making him a manager or a leader of one of the points within the conspiracy. The government urged that Escobar be sentenced according to the findings in the pre-sentence report . . . at a total offense level of forty-two, including a two level enhancement, which would put the defendant within the guidelines of three hundred and sixty months to life. 15 After hearing from counsel, the district court explained at some length why it was declining to grant the two-point leadership enhancement. The court noted that although the defendant was co-owner of the drug point with his brother, he was acting more of [sic] a runner at the point . . . . It was more his brother, I think, who was . . . in active participation as the leader at that point than this defendant. The court went on to say there was no evidence of other individuals the brothers were supervising or over whom control was being exercised, and the court believed Escobar's brother had more decision-making authority. The court concluded, So, really, for my recollection of the evidence in this case, it would seem to me that he doesn't fall within the parameters of the commentary and that's why I'm not inclined to grant or go along with the probation officer's recommended enhancement for the two-level increase pursuant to guideline 3B1.1(c). 16 After his above ruling denying the two-level increase, the court sentenced Escobar with the following explanation: 17 On September 29, 2003, defendant Carlos Manuel Escobar Figueroa was found guilty by jury trial in Criminal Case 02-393, which charges a violation of Title 21, United States Codes, Section 846. Based on guideline 2D1.1C a base offense level of thirty or thirty-eight or thirty [sic] is determined as the offense or [sic] conviction involved more than one hundred and fifty kilograms of cocaine, that is having done the equivalency factors. Since the defendant had possession of a firearm within the conspiracy, a two level enhancement is warranted pursuant to guideline 2D1.1B. There are no other applicable guideline adjustments. Based on a total offense level of forty and a criminal history category of one, the guideline imprisonment range in this particular offense is from two hundred and ninety-two to three hundred and sixty-five months with a fine range of twenty-five thousand to four million dollars plus a supervised release term of at least five years. Therefore, it is the judgment of this court that the defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of two hundred and ninety-two months. Upon release from confinement you shall be placed on supervised release for a term of five years . . . .