Opinion ID: 704816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 1. The Indictment 3 Verdugo, a customs inspector, was indicted by a grand jury for allegedly conspiring to evade the payment of customs duties owed by co-defendants Le Chois, Inc. and Esni, Inc., two California corporations engaged in importing women's clothing from Taiwan. 1 The indictment also charged Verdugo with accepting a $5,000.00 bribe in return for signing and/or initialing customs forms without proper entry documentation and without inspecting the imported goods. 2. The Pretrial Motions 4 Co-defendant Edward Talamantes was the U.S. Attorney's Office's key witness in its case against Verdugo. Talamantes had worked with Verdugo as a customs inspector. He approached Verdugo about joining the conspiracy and he apparently acted as the liaison between Verdugo and the other defendants. 5 In 1983, while still employed as a customs inspector, Talamantes was involved in two instances of inappropriate off-duty conduct. A May 4, 1983 memorandum prepared by the U.S. Customs Service indicated that Robert Brosio, the Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, had reviewed the files on these incidents, had discussed them with then-U.S. Attorney Stephen Trott, and had advised the Customs Service that Talamantes' credibility had been so damaged by his conduct that he could no longer act as a Government witness in any future criminal proceedings in the Central District of California. 6 Relying on this memorandum, Verdugo moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis of outrageous governmental conduct. He also joined co-defendant Feldman's motion to recuse the U.S. Attorney's Office from prosecuting the case. Verdugo argued in his motion to dismiss that the U.S. Attorney's Office's decision to call Talamantes as a witness amounted to outrageous governmental conduct because the office had decided ten years earlier that it would no longer use Talamantes as a witness in criminal cases. The district court denied Verdugo's motion. 7 The motion to recuse argued that the district court should bar the U.S. Attorney's Office from prosecuting the case because, if Talamantes were called as a witness, the defense would call Brosio (the Assistant U.S. Attorney who reviewed the Talamantes file in 1983) to impeach Talamantes' credibility. Because Brosio was from the same office that was prosecuting the case (although he did not participate in Verdugo's case), the defense argued that the entire office should be recused. The court denied the motion. 3. The Conviction and Sentence 8 After a three day bench trial, the court convicted Verdugo of the conspiracy charge, but acquitted him on the charge of accepting a bribe. The Presentence Report concluded that, for his conspiracy conviction, Verdugo was eligible for a sentence of 37 to 46 months based on an adjusted offense level of 21. At the sentencing hearing, the district court gave Verdugo a three point offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, bringing his adjusted offense level to 18, with a sentencing range of 27 to 33 months. The district judge told Verdugo that, if he were not constrained by the Guidelines, he would sentence Verdugo to less than 27 months. Because he was obliged to follow the Guidelines, however, he sentenced Verdugo to 27 months imprisonment.