Opinion ID: 2778728
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts and the Sentencing Hearing

Text: Beginning in 2003, Israel, his wife Laura Brito (“Laura”), and his nephew Cesar Brito (“Cesar”) conspired to import cocaine from Mexico to the United States. One of their couriers, Maria Flores, was caught at the port of entry in Del Rio, Texas, on September 28, 2003; she confessed to several prior trips and explained that Cesar had recruited her but Israel also assisted her by, among other things, providing her with a car and instructing her on travel routes. Israel, Laura, and Cesar were named in a four-count superseding indictment charging them with various cocaine-related crimes. In 2008, Israel pleaded guilty to the second count, conspiracy to import cocaine, in exchange for the government’s agreement to do the following: dismiss the other charges; move for a third-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 3E1.1 if he was entitled to a twolevel reduction; and recommend a sentence at the bottom of the advisory guidelines. In addition to pleading guilty, Israel also waived his right to appeal his guilty plea and any sentence imposed within the advisory guidelines, except on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, as part of the plea agreement, Israel stipulated to a factual basis that contained several admissions but did not include Flores’s seven previous trips or two trips by another driver Cesar recruited, Adriana 2 Case: 13-50348 Document: 00512933528 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 No. 13-50348 Cardenas. In fact, he did not name Cardenas or acknowledge her existence or role in the conspiracy. On May 8, 2008, Israel attended a presentence interview with a probation officer. His attorney did not attend this interview but advised him not to discuss his conduct. As a result, the probation officer did not recommend that Israel be given an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction in offense level under § 3E1.1, as he had not yet “truthfully admitt[ed] the conduct comprising the offense(s) of conviction.” See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(a) (2007). To obtain this reduction, Israel had a second presentence interview on July 10, which his attorney did attend, though he issued the same instructions to Israel. Without any admission of the offense conduct to probation, the presentence report did not recommend an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. According to the report, Israel’s total offense level under the sentencing guidelines was 42, computed from a base offense level of 38 and a four-level increase for being “an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants.” Israel was held responsible for 169.27 kg of cocaine, the sum of the known quantities seized from Flores (24.27 kg) and Cardenas (20 kg), and the estimated quantities previously transported by Flores (105 kg) 2 and Cardenas (20 kg). This drug quantity determined the base offense level of 38. As Israel had no criminal history, the guideline range for his total offense level of 42 was imprisonment for 360 months to life. Israel timely filed objections to the presentence report, challenging the drug quantity, denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, and his characterization as an organizer or leader. Most relevantly, Israel denied any involvement with Cardenas. Thus, he requested that the 40 kg attributed to 2Flores stated that each of her prior 7 trips involved 20 kg of cocaine, while other, unnamed “cooperating witnesses” estimated her loads at 10 kg each. The presentence report averaged these figures to arrive at 15 kg for each of the 7 trips, for a total of 105 kg of cocaine. 3 Case: 13-50348 Document: 00512933528 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 No. 13-50348 her be excluded from his drug quantity and urged that the four-level leadership increase be dropped, as without Cardenas the conspiracy involved fewer than the statutory requirement of five participants. At Israel’s sentencing hearing in 2009, the district court overruled most of Israel’s objections to the presentence report. Israel’s counsel had a discussion with the district court about whether Israel’s failure to debrief with the probation officer precluded the acceptance of responsibility. The court took the position that admitting to relevant facts in the factual basis was not enough, there must be a full accounting to the probation officer. After ruling on Israel’s objections, the district court proceeded with sentencing. The court formally accepted Israel’s guilty plea and then gave him the opportunity to speak on his own behalf. 3 During allocution, Israel stated that he had made a mistake and that he regretted it. However, he went on to state that he moved to Mexico in October 2003 and had nothing to do with Cesar or Cardenas. In addition, he stated that he came back to the United States to purchase supplies for his jewelry business and that his family was involved in “lots of different things” but that he was “never there in the picture.” Israel protested that Cesar was the boss in the smuggling operation. Following these statements, his counsel offered a number of reasons why the district court should consider a downward departure. Allocution concluded with a final statement from Israel about his family. The district court then stated that it was “contemplating a sentence outside of the guideline range, but [] was waiting to hear something from Mr. Brito.” The district court expressed concern about Israel’s continued denial of the Cardenas-related conduct and blaming of his nephew, Cesar. The district 3 The court stated: “At this time, Mr. Brito, you have the opportunity to say whatever you’d like. And at this point this is allocution. So you can tell me about yourself, your family whatever you’d like to say.” 4 Case: 13-50348 Document: 00512933528 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 No. 13-50348 court concluded: “The Court doesn’t have any reason to sentence outside of the advisory guideline range. I can’t come up with anything when the defendant doesn’t give me anything even here during allocution. So the Court finds that the advisory guidelines are adequate . . . .” Israel was sentenced to 360 months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release.