Opinion ID: 150927
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence, Guilty Plea, and Sentencing (2007-2008)

Text: In 2003 a series of major arrests crippled Las Avispas Uno, the predecessor of Las Avispas Dos's drug distribution operation. The remaining members of Las Avispas Uno held a meeting to decide who would take over prominent positions within a new drug conspiracy. [2] At that meeting, Appellant's brother, Joe, assumed the top leadership role in the reconstituted Las Avispas (in English, The Wasps), Las Avispas Dos. On March 19, 2007, a grand jury sitting in the District of Puerto Rico returned a two-count indictment against Appellant and forty-one co-conspirators. [3] Count One of the indictment charged that, between approximately 2003 and 2007, the group of forty-two defendants conspired to possess with intent to distribute and did distribute narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 860. [4] The indictment made multiple references to the drug trafficking organization in which Appellant was accused of being a member, Las Avispas. [5] The indictment alleged that the co-conspirators, including Appellant (1) operated multiple drug distribution points within the municipality of Guayama; (2) possessed firearms to protect themselves from other competing drug trafficking organizations, and to maintain control over the above mentioned `drug distribution points'[;] and (3) killed and attempted to kill members of the organization and members of rival drug trafficking organizations in order to intimidate them and to maintain and further their control over `drug distribution points.' The indictment specifically alleged that Appellant, along with three other indicted co-conspirators, killed Ricardo Haddock-Collazo (Haddock-Collazo) and then disposed of his body, on or about September 12, 2004, since they believed he was providing information about the drug distribution organization to law enforcement authorities. The PSI Report also noted this allegation, based on the testimony of a cooperating witness. Appellant and nine indicted co-conspirators proceeded to trial on February 11, 2008. On the sixth day of trial, February 19, 2008, Appellant pled guilty, without any plea agreement, to Count One on the indictment. Appellant did not admit to the allegations that he participated in the death of Haddock-Collazo or subsequent disposal of his body. During Appellant's pre-sentence interview conducted by the probation department, he admitted that he was a seller and on occasions he acted as a runner for Las Avispas Dos. Based on Rivera-Díaz's testimony at trial, the PSI Report observed that while Las Avispas Dos runners mostly used the AK-47 rifle, Appellant and other sellers who were close to leaders of the organization were also allowed to use the weapon. Also based on that testimony, the PSI Report stated that from 2003 to 2007, Las Avispas Dos engaged in many shoot outs against their enemies in order to obtain control of the drug points. The indictment stated that [s]ome members [of the conspiracy] would exhibit on their body a tattoo depicting a `[b]ee' in order to identify themselves as loyal members of the organization. [6] The PSI Report stated that Appellant neglected to disclose the fact that he has a [b]ee tattoo on his chest; however, his mother corroborated this fact. At Appellant's disposition hearing, the sentencing court found that the tattoo of a wasp or a bee on his chest was the insignia for the [Las Avispas Dos] organization. Additionally, the PSI Report referenced that Las Avispas Dos prepared capsules of crack cocaine in a house next to the Luis Muñoz Elementary School and that only a wall separated the house from the school. The PSI Report reiterated Rivera-Díaz's testimony at trial as to the amounts, locations, and times that Las Avispas Dos sold drugs. With Rivera-Díaz's testimony that Las Avispas Dos sold 1,100 to 1,300 capsules of cocaine base each day for 364 days per year and a chemist's testimony that each capsule of crack that Las Avispas Dos sold contained .075 grams of cocaine base, the PSI Report concluded that the conspiracy sold 27.3 kilograms of cocaine base annually and an estimated 109.2 kilograms of cocaine base over the life of the conspiracy. [7] The base offense level for offenses involving at least 4.5 kilograms of crack is 38. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1). The PSI Report additionally applied the murder cross-reference for Appellant's participation in the murder of Haddock-Collazo, which increased the base offense level to 43. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d)(1). The PSI Report then subtracted two levels for acceptance of responsibility, establishing a total offense level of 41. The PSI Report assigned Appellant criminal history category II for a prior juvenile conviction for selling drugs as a member of Las Avispas Uno. With an offense level of 41 and a criminal history category of II, the PSI Report provided an advisory guideline sentencing range (GSR) of 360 months to life imprisonment. During the disposition hearing the government stated that: [W]e believe that the evidence presented at trial was that this defendant was a runner. And, as a runner, he would have other individuals under his supervision that would be lookouts, Your Honor. And at some point during the conspiracy, [Appellant] became the right hand of Eduardo Pab[ó]n when in 2005 Pab[ó]n attempted or began to take over the drug trafficking operations. The sentencing court accepted these representations as the court stated [t]his individual certainly had some degree of control. And he was the ... right hand of individuals known as Gabby and Pab[ó]n as well. [8] Appellant filed a Sentencing Memorandum making two objections that are relevant to this appeal. First, he objected to applying the murder cross-reference, arguing that the evidence at trial did not support the conclusion that he participated in the murder. Second, Appellant objected to the entire weight of the drug conspiracy being attributed to him, arguing that he could not reasonably foresee the acts of his co-conspirators. The court sustained defendant's first objection. The court decided not to apply the murder cross-reference despite the fact that it found that there is ample evidence on the record of Appellant's involvement with the death of Haddock-Collazo and also noted that Rivera-Díaz testified that Ricardo Rivera Moreno was present at the time in which this individual was killed by codefendant [Excel A.] Munis. The sentencing court did not impose the murder cross-reference out of an abundance of caution and because evidence of Haddock-Collazo's death was not presented at trial until after Appellant entered his plea. The sentencing court made a number of factual findings related to the drug activities of Las Avispas Dos generally and Appellant specifically. The sentencing court established the extent of Las Avispas Dos's operations, concluding that the drug conspiracy maintained at least two sellers per drug distribution point, operated multiple drug points per shift, and conducted three shifts per day, on a daily basis, 364 days per year (every day except Holy Friday) over the life span of the organization, from 2003 to 2007. The sentencing court established the number of capsules of crack cocaine Las Avispas Dos sold per day. Based on the evidence at trial, the sentencing court concluded that, during each of the morning and afternoon shifts, Las Avispas Dos could sell 200 to 400 capsules of crack cocaine. The sentencing court further concluded that, during the evening shift, Las Avispas Dos could sell 700 capsules of crack cocaine, for a total of 1,100 capsules of crack cocaine sold per day. The sentencing court concluded that the evidence clearly shows that ... the amounts of drugs that were distributed by far exceeded the 4.5 kilograms of cocaine. The sentencing court established that Appellant had a lengthy, lengthy participation in this case as a member of the former organization [Las Avispas Uno] and a member of the new organization [Las Avispas Dos]. The court then estimated the drug quantity for which Appellant was responsible. In making this calculation, the sentencing court assumed that Appellant worked three shifts per week and sold at the low end of the range per shift, 200 capsules. Using the figure of 200 capsules per shift, with each capsule containing .075 grams of cocaine base, times three shifts per week, the sentencing court found that Appellant sold forty-five grams of cocaine per week. The court then took this weekly figure of forty-five grams multiplied by fifty-two weeks and found that Appellant sold 2.34 kilograms of cocaine base per year; multiplying that number by the length of the conspiracy, four years, the sentencing court concluded that Appellant sold 9.2 kilograms of cocaine base over the life of the conspiracy. Finding that Appellant sold 9.2 kilograms of cocaine base triggered a base offense level of 38. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1). The sentencing court then added four additional levels: a two-level enhancement because the offense took place near a protected location (a public elementary school), U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2(a)(1), and an additional two-level enhancement because Appellant possessed a dangerous weapon, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The sentencing court found that Appellant's prior juvenile conviction for illegal possession with intent to distribute marijuana in 2002 for Las Avispas Uno was essentially subsumed within the instant conspiracy and therefore declined to assign Appellant any criminal history points. Thus, with a criminal history category of I, the GSR was 360 months to life imprisonment, which was the same GSR calculated by the PSI Report using the murder cross-reference. However, the sentencing court reduced Appellant's base offense level to 40 as the court subtracted two levels for Appellant accepting responsibility. With a base offense level 40, and a criminal history category of I, the GSR was 292 months to 365 months imprisonment. Defense counsel pointed to several § 3553(a) factors weighing in Appellant's favor, such as Appellant's upbringing in a culture of drugs and violence (both his father and older brothers were involved in drug dealing), with the hope of mitigating the harshness of any sentence imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (requiring courts to consider a number of factors in imposing sentences, including the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant). The sentencing court was unpersuaded, however, and determined that Appellant needed a total reprogramming and that a short period of incarceration will certainly expose the community to further danger and defendant to recidivisms. Therefore, the sentencing court imposed the maximum sentence that was still within the GSR: 365 months. On June 25, 2008, the sentencing court sentenced Appellant to 365-months imprisonment, followed by a fifteen-year term of supervised release.