Opinion ID: 203021
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sentencing Colloquy

Text: Near the outset of the sentencing hearing, the district court explained that it would stay with the miscalculated $1.8 million figure for the money laundering count, see supra note 1, and it then engaged in a lengthy exchange with counsel about the defendants' request for a three-level, rather than two-level, adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. The court considered carefully whether Osorio's Alford plea should make him ineligible for the acceptance of responsibility benefits, but it ultimately concluded that both defendants were entitled to the two-level credit. The court next explored Osorio's criminal history, which consisted of a drunk driving incident thirteen years earlier and his failure to complete payments on the related fine, and found that Osorio properly was placed in CHC II based on that episode. The court then proceeded to impose sentence on Arango. After confirming with both parties that it had properly calculated the Guidelines range to be 262 to 327 months, the court asked the government for its recommendation. The government proposed a term of 262 months and a $2 million fine. Defense counsel urged the court to accept that recommendation  the low end of the range  offering various reasons why his client should be treated leniently. [11] Arango also addressed the court personally, seeking to refute his leadership role in the conspiracy. [12] The government then asked for an opportunity at some point to just address the question of a guideline sentence versus a non-guideline sentence, the factors of 3553(a), and the court invited the prosecutor to do so immediately. The prosecutor spoke at length about the statutory factors, pointing out that the crime of drug trafficking is dangerous to users, their families, and American society as a whole, and that the court had heard evidence that Colombian drug traffickers are particularly dangerous. He detailed the leadership role played by the defendants and the extensive nature of the conspiracies. In examining the defendants' history and characteristics, the prosecutor acknowledged that [e]ach has a family and friends who love them and will miss them, but urged the court to take into account the evidence that they earned substantial income from dealing drugs in the United States, returning to Colombia to live fairly comfortably, but nonetheless continued to supervise and direct other people in the distribution of drugs here in the United States. The prosecutor also emphasized the need to send a message to other people who might think of doing the same things they are. He continued: It's necessary to let people know that if they're going to stay in Colombia and direct other people in distributing cocaine or other drugs in the United States, the government's going to find them, the government's going to extradite them, the government is going to get them back here, the government is going to prove its case; and they're going to be facing very long sentences, sentencing conceivably so long that it might make somebody think twice about whether or not it's worth ruining all that money given the length of the sentences they're going to be serving. That's why the government feels that the conservative sentence under the guidelines at the low end is at least what's called for as to these defendants, your Honor. Thereafter, the court, without explanation, imposed the 262-month term and a $2 million fine on Arango. The court then addressed Osorio's circumstances, rejecting the view that CHC II overstated his criminal history and finding that his sentencing range therefore was 292 to 365 months. The government again recommended the low end of the range  292 months. Osorio's counsel, stating that he had intended to seek a sentence of sixteen years, ultimately asked the court to just impose a sentence substantially less than the 292 months. He urged the court to take into consideration the § 3553(a) factors, noting that he had carefully consider[ed] the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence imposed, and why the guidelines are much more than should be imposed on this case. He pointed to Osorio's separation from his family, including two young children, continuing threats from another member of the conspiracy, and his lack of prior criminal involvement. Osorio also spoke at length, asking forgiveness and addressing his family circumstances, his fear of an attack on his family by Vallejo, his difficult time in jail, and his view that Cruz had not told the truth about his involvement in the conspiracy. Osorio's counsel concluded the colloquy by asking the court to factor in his discussions with the government about Osorio's willingness to cooperate and the possibility of a so-called safety valve reduction, [13] for which he later was found ineligible. The court then announced its sentencing decision: I am not going to impose a guideline sentence. . . . [T]he low end of the guideline sentence is 292 months, which is I guess 30 months above the sentence that I've imposed on Mr. Arango, and that 30 months is a consequence of this criminal history category two, which is the drunk driving offense. And while I don't minimize that offense, the offense involved here of these two defendants as far as I can tell are not substantially different in commission of this offense. And it seems to me that they should not have a different outcome on the basis of that  that drunk driving offense in Mr. Osorio's case. So I'm going to  and also because I think that the 262 months that I've imposed on Mr. Arango, and which I propose to impose on Mr. Osorio, itself is sufficient to meet the sentencing factors outlined in the statute, and for that reason I'm going to impose that sentence as the term of imprisonment on Mr. Osorio.