Opinion ID: 6344998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: PSR Objections & Sentencing

Text: Before the sentencing hearing, Arellanes-Portillo objected to the three-level role adjustment. In an Addendum to the PSR, the probation office restated ArellanesPortillo’s objection in these words: “Mr. Arellanes-Portillo was not the manager, someone named Bolo was. We do not believe that the enhancement should apply.”4 R. vol. 3 at 38. The government defended the PSR’s aggravating-role adjustment on grounds that “[t]he Tenth Circuit has consistently held that the ‘enhancement under § 3B1.1(b) applies to a defendant who exercised some degree of control or organizational authority over someone subordinate to him in the drug distribution scheme.’” R. vol. 3 at 38–39 (quoting United States v. Cordoba, 71 F.3d 1543, 1547 (10th Cir. 1995)). The government also cited evidence of Arellanes-Portillo’s role in the drug organization. The probation office sided with the government and retained the aggravating-role adjustment in the PSR. It found that Arellanes-Portillo qualified as a manager under § 3B1.1(b) because “[h]e was the known leader of the Kansas City cell and directed CI1 and CI2 in their drug trafficking activities.” R. vol. 3 at 39. So we see that the probation 4 Neither the written objection nor the government’s written response are in the record on appeal, so we rely on the Addendum to the PSR for the parties’ positions. 4 Appellate Case: 20-3165 Document: 010110690171 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 5 office and the parties evaluated the aggravating-role adjustment based on ArellanesPortillo’s drug activity, not his money-laundering activity. At the sentencing hearing, Arellanes-Portillo renewed his objection to the threelevel adjustment for his aggravating role in the offense. He contended that he had merely served as a mouthpiece for his superior in the organization, Portillo-Uranga, and that he had lacked “any autonomy in directing the way the organization runs, the way money comes in and out of the country or when drugs come in and out of the country.” R. vol. 2 at 205–06. So he argued that he shouldn’t qualify for an aggravated-role adjustment. In response, the government rested on its earlier written response to Arellanes-Portillo’s PSR objection. After hearing from the parties, the district court ruled that Arellanes-Portillo had acted as a manager or supervisor as provided in § 3B1.1(b). In support, the court cited testimony that Arellanes-Portillo had been Portillo-Uranga’s “right hand man” and been referred to as “the head of the Kansas City cell.” R. vol. 2 at 206. Among other things, the court noted that Portillo-Uranga had delegated some of his authority to ArellanesPortillo “to contact Mike for purposes of delivering money to him to get to the suppliers[.]” R. vol. 2 at 207. It also determined that Arellanes-Portillo had been higher in the organization than some others “in terms of finding stash houses, using them, dropping them when they thought there was law enforcement heat on them.” R. vol. 2 at 207. From recorded phone calls, the court found that Arellanes-Portillo “directed people to go pick up drugs or deliver money, again, at the behest of Mr. Portillo-Uranga but, nevertheless, Mr. Portillo-Uranga didn’t tell them directly necessarily. He used the defendant to do that 5 Appellate Case: 20-3165 Document: 010110690171 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 6 because the defendant operated as a manager or supervisor.” R. vol. 2 at 207–08. The court further pointed out that Arellanes-Portillo had the authority to cut (dilute) the drugs, that he knew the identity of customers, and that he could set the drug price for some customers. From this, we see that the district court also relied on Arellanes-Portillo’s drug activity in assessing the aggravated-role adjustment, though it also mentioned some of his associated involvement with transporting drug proceeds to Mexico. In the end, the district court accepted the PSR’s sentencing recommendations with one exception—it added two offense levels to § 2S1.1(a)(1)’s base offense level for Arellanes-Portillo’s maintenance of a drug premises under § 2D1.1(b)(12). Thus, the offense level for the money-laundering offenses rose to 39, minus three offense levels for the timely acceptance of responsibility, which left a total offense level of 36. That, combined with criminal-history category of I, resulted in an advisory guidelines range of 188–235 months of imprisonment. From that, the court imposed a term of 188 months. Arellanes-Portillo appealed. He no longer argues that his drug activity failed to support an aggravated-role adjustment for his drug offenses. Instead, now alert to § 2S1.1’s Application Note 2(C), he challenges the district court’s aggravated-role adjustment on a different basis—that it erred by basing the adjustment on relevant conduct for his drug offenses, and not exclusively on relevant conduct for his moneylaundering offenses. 6 Appellate Case: 20-3165 Document: 010110690171 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 7