Opinion ID: 44269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DeSoto’s Plea Colloquy

Text: DeSoto’s drug and firearms convictions stemmed from three robberies that DeSoto planned and committed with Cecilio Nunez, Juan Castillo, and Alberto Garcia.1 During the plea colloquy, the government set forth the following facts 1 Without a written plea agreement, DeSoto pled guilty to these eight crimes: (1) one count of conspiracy “to possess with intent to distribute a Schedule II controlled substance, that is five (5) kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine,” in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A)(ii); (2) one count of conspiracy to obstruct, delay, and affect commerce by robbery using means of actual and threatened force, violence and fear of injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act); (3) one count of conspiracy to use, carry, brandish, and 2 about the robberies. The first robbery occurred on January 13, 2000, and involved a 7-11 store manager. DeSoto went inside the 7-11 store to verify that the manager was present. After DeSoto confirmed the manager’s presence, Castillo and Garcia waited for the manager to leave, followed him, sprayed him with pepper spray or mace provided by DeSoto, and stole $10,000. The second robbery occurred on February 5, 2000, and involved a restaurant owner that DeSoto and his co-conspirators believed was a drug dealer. Nunez, posing as a police officer, conducted a traffic stop of the restaurant owner. Garcia and Castillo, also acting as police officers, drove up and Garcia flashed a police badge provided by DeSoto. Garcia and Castillo then took the restaurant owner to a warehouse where DeSoto pointed a gun at his head, beat him, and threatened to harm him further if he did not disclose where the drugs could be found. As it turned out, the victim had no drugs, so DeSoto and his co-conspirators stole the victim’s money and jewelry. possess a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o); (4) three counts of unlawfully obstructing, delaying, and affecting commerce by robbery using means of actual and threatened force, violence, and fear of injury on or about January 13, 2000, February 5, 2000, and February 15, 2000, respectively, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); (5) attempting to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine on or about February 5, 2000, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A)(ii); and (6) using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime on or about February 5, 2000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (A)(ii) and 2. 3 According to the government, DeSoto had told his co-conspirators (Garcia and Castillo) that the restaurant owner would have 5 kilograms of cocaine. However, the government acknowledged that DeSoto disputed that drug quantity in that DeSoto “has repeatedly been interviewed and eventually he admitted his involvement in this crime, [but] he has stated it was only ounces that they were after, not five kilos.” The third robbery occurred on February 15, 2000, and involved a female bakery owner. DeSoto recruited Castillo and Garcia to rob the victim, whom DeSoto told his co-conspirators would make a good target. The three watched the bakery owner, followed her home, and robbed her of her bakery proceeds. To ensure the robbery’s success, one of the conspirators waited in a police car down the street from the victim’s home so that he could pretend to be chasing the robbers. During the plea colloquy, the government also proffered facts about a failed attempted robbery that took place on February 19, 2000. DeSoto and his cohorts planned to rob persons whom they believed had won the lottery. This robbery plan was foiled, however, when real police officers found Garcia and Castillo in the vicinity with burglary tools, a walkie talkie, and gloves. Although the police stopped DeSoto as he was driving by, they released him because he identified 4 himself as a police officer. The police later discovered a matching walkie-talkie in the path DeSoto took to leave the scene. At the end of the government’s recitation of the facts, the district court asked DeSoto if the government’s evidence was correct, to which DeSoto replied “Yes, sir.” The district court then asked if there was “[a]nything you want to add or anything I left out?” DeSoto replied, “No, sir.” DeSoto then pled guilty to all eight counts in the indictment, including count 1, which charged conspiracy “to possess with intent to distribute a Schedule II controlled substance, that is five (5) kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine . . . .” After DeSoto pled guilty, the government asked for “an additional question to avoid sentencing issues.” Specifically, the government asked the district court to confirm that the conspiracy was for 5 or more kilograms of cocaine. DeSoto’s counsel responded that “[t]he Court already asked him specifically those questions. . . . [and] [y]ou have done a sufficient job to make sure he is pleading guilt[y] to the charges.” The district court then acknowledged that there may be some factual disputes that DeSoto would “take up at sentencing,” including the drug quantity issue. The district court adjudged DeSoto guilty of all counts in the indictment. 5 B. Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) and Sentencing The PSI recommended a base offense level of 32 because DeSoto’s drug offense involved at least 5, but less than 15, kilograms of cocaine.2 The offense level of 32 was increased: (1) two levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3, because the restaurant owner was physically restrained during the robbery; (2) four levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), because of DeSoto’s role as a leader or organizer; and (3) two levels under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, because as a police officer DeSoto abused a position of trust. After a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, DeSoto’s total offense level was 38. His criminal history category of I and offense level of 38 produced a Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months’ imprisonment. DeSoto objected to the PSI and again at sentencing to the role and abuse-oftrust enhancements. The district court overruled these objections. DeSoto also objected to the PSI’s recommended drug quantity but he did not raise the drug quantity issue at sentencing. 2 The PSI recommended that DeSoto’s eight offenses be grouped into three separate groups based on the January 13, February 5, and February 15 robberies. Group 2, relating to the February 5, 2000 robbery of the restaurant owner, produced the highest adjusted offense level. Group 2 was thus used to compute DeSoto’s Guidelines range. 6 The district court adopted the PSI calculations and sentenced DeSoto to 235 months’ imprisonment (the low end of the Guidelines range), to run consecutively to an 84-month sentence on the firearm conviction. The district court also ordered DeSoto to pay $22,169.93 in restitution. C. DeSoto’s First Appeal DeSoto appealed his convictions and sentences. As to his sentences, DeSoto argued that the district court erred in ordering restitution and in determining the enhancements for his role as a leader, his abuse of trust as a police officer, and for a drug quantity of 5 or more kilograms of cocaine. In the first appeal, this Court concluded “there is no merit to any of the challenges DeSoto makes concerning his convictions and sentences, with the exception of the issue involving drug quantity.” DeSoto I, at . After affirming DeSoto’s convictions, this Court then said, “because the district court failed to make findings regarding the five or more kilograms of cocaine for which it held DeSoto responsible at sentencing, we vacate DeSoto’s sentences and remand this case for resentencing. Id. D. DeSoto’s Resentencing On remand, the district court restricted all arguments and evidence at resentencing to the drug-quantity issue, finding that we had issued a limited 7 remand. At the resentencing hearing, the government presented a transcript of the sworn testimony of robbery-participant Garcia who testified at Nunez’s trial that DeSoto told them that the February 5, 2000 robbery victim would have 5 kilograms of cocaine. Specifically, during Nunez’s trial, Garcia testified regarding what the co-conspirators planned to take from the restaurant owner. Garcia stated: “It was a large amount of money, what’s supposed to be five kilos, some money. I eventually gave in.” Garcia was also asked: “Mr. Desoto told you it would be five kilos of cocaine?” Garcia responded “yes.” Later in the trial, on crossexamination, Garcia reiterated that the goal was to get 5 kilograms of cocaine from the restaurant owner. At the resentencing hearing, DeSoto disputed the drug quantity by pointing to his own testimony from Nunez’s trial in which he (1) denied having any detailed information about the amount of drugs and (2) denied telling Garcia that the restaurant owner would have 5 kilograms. The district court found that DeSoto was responsible for 5 kilograms of cocaine because he had pled guilty to that amount. The district court also found that Garcia’s trial testimony was reliable and credible, that DeSoto’s testimony was “ambivalent” and “self-serving,” and thus, that the government successfully proved by a preponderance of the evidence that DeSoto was responsible for 5 8 kilograms of cocaine. The district court then reimposed the same sentences it had entered at the original sentencing. DeSoto timely appealed.