Opinion ID: 751138
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Garcia's Sentencing Arguments

Text: 59 Manuel Garcia pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge against him on September 26, 1995, one week before jury selection was scheduled to begin in the conspirators' joint trial. At sentencing, the court agreed with the Government that Garcia's base offense level of 38 should be enhanced three levels due to his role as a manager/supervisor in the conspiracy. See USSG § 3B1.1(b). Judge Norgle also decreased Garcia's sentencing level by two levels for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(a) as a result of his guilty plea, but he rejected Garcia's request to apply § 3E1.1(b)(2), which calls for an additional one-level decrease for a defendant whose timely plea enables the Government to avoid trial preparation and thereby efficiently allocate its resources. Garcia's final offense level for sentencing purposes therefore was 39, dictating a sentence range of 262 to 327 months imprisonment. Judge Norgle sentenced Garcia to the statutory minimum of 262 months imprisonment. Garcia now appeals the court's manager/supervisor and timely plea determinations.
60 We review the district court's factual determination that Garcia qualified for an aggravating role adjustment under § 3B1.1 for clear error. See, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 111 F.3d 56, 60 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 242, 139 L.Ed.2d 172 (1997). Section 3B1.1(b) calls for a three-level enhancement when the criminal activity involves five or more participants and the defendant acted as a manager or supervisor with respect to any of the participants. See USSG § 3B1.1(b); see also United States v. McGuire, 957 F.2d 310, 315-17 (7th Cir.1992). At Garcia's sentencing hearing, Judge Norgle found the following: 61 Garcia was involved with at least five participants, and that included Angel Rojas, Arroyo, Caballero, Gonzalez and Carrion. The defendant oversaw the acquisition and the distribution of the cocaine from Mexico to Illinois and negotiated the price with the buyer. The defendant's direct contact with the leader and the co-defendant, Jose Gonzalez, and his claimed right to a huge profit of about $35,000 indicates he had a significant aggravating role as a manager in the transaction.... [T]he tapes indicate the managerial activity of Mr. Garcia and, clearly, he was a manager and supervisor of others. 62 Garcia argues first that Judge Norgle's findings were too general in nature to suffice to establish a managerial role. In any event, Garcia argues, any findings that the district court did make in this context were clearly erroneous, because he was actually nothing more than a middleman or a broker. 63 Garcia relies on our decision in United States v. Thompson, 944 F.2d 1331 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1097, 112 S.Ct. 1177, 117 L.Ed.2d 422 (1992), as support for his argument that the evidence relied on by the district court was too general to support its finding of an aggravating role. However, Thompson does not aid Garcia, because in that case we held only that the evidence regarding the defendant's role in setting the price that the conspiracy paid for cocaine, as well as his role in controlling deliveries of cash and cocaine, was insufficient to judge the scope of the defendant's conduct. Id. at 1349-50. We stated that the government presented virtually no evidence that [Thompson] exercised any control or responsibility for the affairs of the conspiracy. Id. at 1350. Conversely, in the instant case Judge Norgle, after presiding over a jury trial of some of Garcia's co-conspirators, expressly found that Garcia exercised control over his co-conspirators, in part by making numerous telephone calls to Rockford and the apartment in Justice. 64 In addition, Judge Norgle adopted the presentence investigation report (PSR) prepared by the Government as an accurate reflection of the trial evidence in the case. In responding to the PSR Garcia did not object to the factual characterization of the offense; he only objected to the PSR's legal conclusion regarding his managerial status. Under such circumstances we may affirm the district court's findings regarding a defendant's managerial role if they are adequately supported by the record, even if the district court fails to make explicit findings on the issue. See United States v. Hall, 109 F.3d 1227, 1234 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 153, 139 L.Ed.2d 99 (1997). For these reasons, Garcia's argument that the district court's findings were too general in nature must fail. 65 We also disagree with Garcia's contention that the district court's finding regarding his managerial status was clearly erroneous. Reviewing the evidence presented by the Government, it is apparent that Garcia was responsible for organizing and overseeing the July 18th delivery and that he had control over his co-conspirators, who were in the Chicago area to ensure that the transaction was successful. When meeting with the agents, Garcia negotiated the logistics of the delivery with Agent Tovar. Garcia told the agents that they would trust each other more in the future, since the difficult one is the first one, and informed the agents of the conspiracy's intention to conduct business with them on an ongoing basis. In addition, Garcia directed Defendant Caballero to the Justice apartment to receive payment, and he was responsible for making sure that Rojas delivered the cocaine at the correct time. Garcia demonstrated significant authority over his coconspirators. See United States v. Fones, 51 F.3d 663 (7th Cir.1995). 66 Moreover, the evidence does not reflect Garcia's contention that he was merely a steerer or middleman, for he was vested with authority over his co-conspirators in the Chicago area. United States v. Sostre, 967 F.2d 728 (1st Cir.1992), upon which Garcia relies heavily, is not factually similar to this case. As an initial matter, the amount of cocaine involved in Sostre was only one kilogram, 967 F.2d at 730, as opposed to the 350 kilograms which Judge Norgle determined to constitute Garcia's relevant amount for sentencing purposes. This huge disparity alone is sufficient to distinguish Garcia's case from Sostre's. See USSG § 3B1.1, comment. (n. 4) (directing the district court to consider the nature and scope of the illegal activity in determining whether an aggravating role enhancement as an organizer or leader, as opposed to a manager or supervisor, 8 is merited). In addition, the First Circuit determined that [t]here is nothing in the record to show that [Sostre] exerted control over any of the other codefendants (save perhaps for one coconspirator acting as a lookout), id. at 733, a determination that is directly at odds with this case. Finally, Sostre itself indicated that if other factors had been present, such as a high degree of purity of the cocaine or representations by the defendant that he could deliver additional quantities, a finding of managerial authority could have been justified. Id. at 734. Both of these factors were present in Garcia's case. Accordingly, because neither precedent nor the evidence supports Garcia's argument that he acted merely as a middleman, and because sufficient evidence supports Judge Norgle's finding that Garcia acted in a managerial capacity, we reject Garcia's assertion that the district court erred in applying § 3B1.1(b).
67 The Sentencing Guidelines call for an additional one-level reduction for a defendant who accepts responsibility under § 3E1.1(a) and who timely notif[ies] authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the court to allocate its resources efficiently. USSG § 3E1.1(b)(2). A defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the one-level reduction. See, e.g., United States v. Wetwattana, 94 F.3d 280, 285 (7th Cir.1996). We review the district court's factual findings regarding acceptance of responsibility for clear error. See, e.g., United States v. Covarrubias, 65 F.3d 1362, 1367 (7th Cir.1995). 68 The facts regarding Garcia's plea negotiations are somewhat hazy, largely because the Government prosecutor with whom Garcia had been negotiating left the U.S. Attorney's office during the course of the negotiations. According to an affidavit filed by Garcia's attorney in the district court, plea negotiations had reached the penultimate stage when the Assistant U.S. Attorney conducting the negotiations, Frank Lipuma, informed Garcia's attorney that he was leaving the office. The new prosecutors assigned to the case indicated their intent to request a three-level enhancement due to Garcia's managerial status, an enhancement that Lipuma had apparently indicated he would not request. This change in the terms of the agreement derailed the negotiations and rendered Garcia's ultimate guilty plea untimely. 69 Garcia argues that a plea agreement was in place and that, but for the change in prosecutors, a timely plea would have been entered. At Garcia's sentencing hearing the Assistant U.S. Attorney addressed Garcia's contention by denying knowledge of any negotiations that preceded him: I want to say right up front, I don't know what Mr. Lipuma may or may not have said in plea negotiations. He is not with the office. The Government also responded that it was preparing for trial against Garcia while the negotiations were proceeding. 70 We regard the Government's disavowal of any knowledge of the negotiations between Lipuma and Garcia with disfavor. Even when the Government changes its position in the course of plea negotiations, it retains an obligation to present fully the history of those negotiations to the district court. This obligation is particularly salient in the context of the district court's determination of acceptance of responsibility, since [t]he timeliness of the defendant's acceptance of responsibility ... is context specific. USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n. 6). In some circumstances, intentional prosecutorial footdragging that slows a timely plea may be a fact for the district court to consider under § 3E1.1(b)(2). 71 Nonetheless, we believe that the district court was correct in determining that Garcia was not entitled to the additional one-level reduction. He concedes that his negotiations with Assistant United States Attorney Lipuma were never finalized; even if those negotiations were complete, any agreement was still subject to the approval of Lipuma's supervisors. Accordingly, while Garcia's negotiations may have indicated an intent to enter a guilty plea, his expressed intent was insufficient in this case to save the Government from trial preparation. As Judge Norgle stated, Garcia could have pleaded guilty at a much earlier time had he so desired. See Covarrubias, 65 F.3d at 1367-68 (finding a one-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b)(2) unwarranted because the defendant failed to make a conditional offer to plead guilty); United States v. Francis, 39 F.3d 803, 808 (7th Cir.1994) (Until the defendants actually pleaded guilty, they could still change their minds and the government still had to prepare for the contingency that the defendants might elect to go to trial.). Although § 3E1.1(b)(2) requires timely notification of an intention to plead guilty, and not a guilty plea itself, courts are still required to consider whether this expressed intent actually resulted in conserving Government and court resources. See, e.g., Wetwattana, 94 F.3d at 285-86; Francis, 39 F.3d at 808. Because a defendant is not bound by an expressed intention to plead guilty, it may indeed be a rare case in which intent, without more, actually will result in the conservation of resources. 72 In the instant case, Garcia failed to introduce any evidence that either his intention to plead guilty or his guilty plea allowed the Government to avoid preparation, or that court resources were conserved. In fact, the Government was required to prepare extensive transcripts of taped conversations regarding Garcia's participation in the conspiracy. Moreover, at such a late date the Government could not expediently eliminate all of the evidence that it had prepared against Garcia from its case against Garcia's co-defendants, thereby requiring the jury to hear evidence that the Government otherwise would not have presented. We conclude, therefore, that the district court did not err in determining that Garcia was not entitled to a one-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b)(2).