Opinion ID: 2995706
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sentencing Entrapment or Manipulation

Text: Mr. Gutierrez also argues that he should not be held responsible for the two kilograms involved in the September 8 exchange because that transaction was initiated by the Government. He asserts that if the Government had given Jose and Marin $42,000 to return to him instead of cocaine, he could not have been found responsible for the additional two kilograms. To the extent that Mr. Gutierrez is asserting that the Government engaged in sentencing entrapment in this case, his argument fails. Sentencing entrapment occurs ’when the government causes a defendant initially predisposed to commit a lesser crime to commit a more serious offense.’ United States v. Estrada, 256 F.3d 466, 473-74 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Garcia, 79 F.3d 74, 75 (7th Cir. 1996)). To show entrapment, a defendant must prove that he lacked a predisposition to commit the crime, but that his will was overborne by unrelenting government persistence. United States v. Cotts, 14 F.3d 300, 306 n.2 (7th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Searcy, 284 F.3d 938, 942 (8th Cir. 2002) (’entrapment . . . focuses on the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime in question. . . . [The question then becomes whether] the defen dant was predisposed to commit the crime, apart from the government’s inducement.’ (quoting United States v. Berg, 178 F.3d 976, 980 (8th Cir. 1999))); United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1153 (4th Cir. 1994) (an essential element of sentencing entrapment is the defendant’s lack of predisposition to commit the crime). Mr. Gutierrez has not made such a showing here. Mr. Gutierrez clearly demonstrated a predisposition to be involved with the distribution of cocaine by admitting that he supplied two kilograms to Jose and Marin for resale. Furthermore, he was a willing participant in the September 8 transaction; he traveled to the Popeye’s restaurant for the specific purpose of picking up two kilograms of cocaine. Mr. Gutierrez admitted during his plea colloquy that he went to the restaurant knowing that a drug deal would take place: THE COURT: Well you knew it was a drug deal, right? MR. GUTIERREZ: Yes. THE COURT: You and your co-defendant Marin Aguayo-Robles and Jose Aguayo were involved--you were setting up a two- kilogram deal, right, cocaine deal? MR. GUTIERREZ: Yes. THE COURT: The cocaine got stolen by the buyer, right? MR. GUTIERREZ: Yes. THE COURT: Somebody went out and got two more kilograms to fulfill the original deal, correct? MR. GUTIERREZ: Yes. R.72-1 at 20. Mr. Gutierrez did not present any evidence to show that the Government somehow coerced him to participate in the September 8 transaction; rather, the evidence shows that he willingly went to the Popeye’s to procure the two replacement kilograms of cocaine. It was Mr. Gutierrez’s expectation that he would receive either money or replacement cocaine that led to the September 8 transaction, not pressure by the Government. He therefore cannot show that sentencing entrapment occurred.