Opinion ID: 6352904
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the defendant’s character or reputation; (2)

Text: whether the government initially suggested the criminal activity; (3) whether the defendant en- gaged in the criminal activity for profit; (4) whether the defendant evidenced a reluctance to commit the offense that was overcome by government persuasion; and (5) the nature of the inducement or persuasion by the govern- ment. United States v. Stallworth, 656 F.3d 721, 725–26 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Hall, 608 F.3d 340, 343 (7th Cir. 2010)). Of these, “the most important factor is whether the defendant was reluctant to commit the offense.” Id. at 726 (quoting Hall, 608 F.3d at 343). Mr. Garcia maintains that he demonstrated reluctance “by his repeated discussion of others who might be able to provide [the CI] with the requested controlled substances and 22 guns.” However, the record does not reveal any refusals to 22 Appellant’s Br. 19. No. 20-3335 17 engage in criminal activity by Mr. Garcia that might show reluctance. See, e.g., Mayfield, 771 F.3d at 442 (“Mayfield repeatedly rejected Potts’s entreaties over the course of several weeks, relenting only when faced with an implied threat that the Gangster Disciples street gang might retaliate against him if he did not repay his debt. Accepted as true, Mayfield’s initial reluctance and continued resistance is substantive evidence that he was not predisposed to commit the crime when Potts first proposed it.”). Additionally, Mr. Garcia’s “repeated discussion of others” who could assist the CI, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, leads to a different conclusion: Mr. Garcia was familiar with, and had the means to procure, the drugs and guns that the CI sought. Far from reluctance, Mr. Garcia’s recorded statements reveal both an effort to impress the CI with his knowledge of the drug trade and a willingness to engage in that trade. The remaining factors also support the district court’s finding of predisposition. Although the CI first raised the possibility of purchasing drugs and weapons, Mr. Garcia took it from there, conversing freely and in-depth on the types of drugs available, their quality, and their price. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 32 F.3d 304, 308 (7th Cir. 1994) (rejecting entrapment defense where defendant evidenced knowledge of drug terminology and pricing); United States v. Holmes, 421 F.3d 683, 687 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating predisposition had been shown through the defendant’s “working knowledge of terms used in the drug trade” and discussions with the informant regarding “her dealings with other customers … and her ability to secure certain quantities of crack”). Mr. Garcia’s own statements reveal that he was involved in the sale of 18 No. 20-3335 narcotics for a profit; indeed, he pocketed thousands of dollars just from the CI alone. See Hall, 608 F.3d at 343 (noting defendant’s willingness “to participate in the criminal enterprise for a profit” as evidence of predisposition). In sum, we agree with the district court that the record was “replete with 23 evidence of Defendant’s predisposition.” Certainly, looking at the evidence in the Government’s favor, it met its burden of showing predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt. Because viewed in the light most favorable to the Government the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Garcia was not induced to commit the crime and was otherwise predisposed to sell the drugs and weapon to the CI, there is no basis on which to disturb the district court’s entrapment decision.