Opinion ID: 175341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: teodulo pineda-buenaventura—drug

Text: AMOUNT FINDING Teodulo Pineda-Buenaventura was a “runner” in the drug conspiracy who delivered cocaine at the direction of his cousin, Efrain Pineda-Buenaventura, one of the co-leaders of the conspiracy.1 On June 19, 2008, after wiretap surveillance, police executed a search warrant at his home and recovered cocaine, a digital scale, a firearm, and $16,000 in cash. He was arrested, admitted to his involvement in the conspiracy, and on December 10, 2008, pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to a single count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine. The plea agreement provided that he was subject to a 60-month mandatory minimum term of imprisonment pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), but offered no details as to the specific amount of drugs to which he was admitting responsibility. At the plea hearing, the 1 “Pineda-Buenaventura” refers to defendant-appellant Teodulo Pineda-Buenaventura. When we refer to Efrain PinedaBuenaventura, we do so using his full name so as to avoid confusion. 4 Nos. 09-1500, 09-1525, 09-1875 & 09-2431 government acknowledged that while the count to which Pineda-Buenaventura was pleading was based on an amount of at least 500 grams, if the presentence investigation resulted in a finding that he was responsible for less, he would only be held accountable for that lower amount. Pineda-Buenaventura’s presentence investigation report (“PSR”) stated that 105 grams of cocaine were recovered from his home during the execution of the search warrant and that wiretap surveillance showed he had made deliveries totaling approximately 300 grams of cocaine. The PSR also found that Pineda- Buenaventura made 22 additional deliveries in which the drug quantities “could not be determined.” Based on these findings, the PSR stated that “[t]he probation office believes that Teodulo’s relevant conduct involves at least 400 grams to 500 grams of cocaine, resulting in a base offense level of 24. This is a conservative estimate.” At Pineda-Buenaventura’s sentencing hearing, the district judge imposed the statutory minimum sentence of 60 months based on responsibility for 500 or more grams of cocaine. The district court appeared to agree with the findings in the PSR—including, presumably, its estimate that Pineda-Buenaventura was responsible for “at least” 400 to 500 grams of cocaine—but then stated “[y]our relevant conduct involves at least 400 grams but less than 500 grams of cocaine.” (emphasis added). Apparently, the district judge believed that Pineda-Buenaventura was responsible for at least 500 grams (given that she sentenced him to a mandatory Nos. 09-1500, 09-1525, 09-1875 & 09-2431 5 minimum based on that amount), but then made an express finding that he was responsible for less than that amount. Pineda-Buenaventura contends that his PSR does not establish that he was responsible for at least 500 grams of cocaine in the conspiracy, the amount necessary for the charge to which he pled. Because he forfeited this argument by failing to challenge the PSR’s amount determinations below (he admits this), the sentence is reviewed for plain error.2 United States v. Jacques, 345 F.3d 960, 962 (7th Cir. 2003). Under this standard of review, we affirm a sentence unless, after considering all the evidence, we have a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Haynes, 582 F.3d 686, 709 (7th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). We find that while the PSR may support a finding that Pineda-Buenaventura was responsible for at least 500 grams under the evidentiary standards applicable at sentencing, remand is necessary because the sentencing judge made a finding on the record that Pineda- Buenaventura was responsible for less than that amount. 2 The government argues that Pineda-Buenaventura waived, not merely forfeited, appeal on this issue. But waiver is an intentional, strategic decision not to raise a challenge, whereas an argument is forfeited when the issue is not raised negligently or accidentally. See United States v. Cooper, 243 F.3d 411, 416 (7th Cir. 2001). We can discern no tactical reason behind Pineda-Buenaventura’s failure to raise this argument. See United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Waiver principles should be construed liberally in favor of the defendant.”). 6 Nos. 09-1500, 09-1525, 09-1875 & 09-2431 Evidentiary standards at sentencing are not as stringent as those at trial. United States v. Taylor, 72 F.3d 533, 543 (7th Cir. 1995). A district court can determine drug quantities attributable to a defendant based only on a preponderance of the evidence, United States v. Salinas, 62 F.3d 855, 859 (7th Cir. 1995), and can rely on the findings set forth in a PSR so long as the information has “sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a). That said, we have encouraged courts to “make conservative estimates [of drug amounts], especially when presented with generalized testimony, as a way to . . . approximate drug quantities.” United States v. Henderson, 58 F.3d 1145, 1152 (7th Cir. 1995). Here, while the facts set forth in Pineda-Buenaventura’s PSR would arguably support a finding that he was responsible for over 500 grams of cocaine under the standard we just described, the sentencing judge’s express statement that his relevant conduct involved “less than 500 grams” forecloses any such interpretation and compels remand. “A sentencing based on an incorrect Guidelines range constitutes plain error and warrants a remand for resentencing, unless we have reason to believe that the error in no way affected the district court’s selection of a particular sentence.” United States v. Farmer, 543 F.3d 363, 375 (7th Cir. 2008). Here, relevant conduct involving an amount between 400 and 499 grams—the amount expressly referenced by the district judge— would have generated an advisory Guideline range of 46-57 months, not the 60-month minimum set forth in § 841(b)(1). Nos. 09-1500, 09-1525, 09-1875 & 09-2431 7 Remand will provide the district court with an opportunity to clarify its findings regarding the drug amount attributable to Pineda-Buenaventura and to impose an appropriate sentence for that amount. See, e.g., United States v. Salem, 597 F.3d 877, 887-88 (7th Cir. 2010) (remanding for resentencing when findings were insufficient to support sentence imposed). It is possible that the sentencing judge merely misspoke when making the finding that Pineda-Buenaventura’s relevant conduct involved “less than 500 grams,” but there is no way to be sure of this, especially when the PSR on its own terms does not unequivocally establish that PinedaBuenaventura was responsible for at least 500 grams of drugs. See id. at 888 (if court relies on PSR to make a finding as to certain conduct, the PSR must actually define that conduct); see also Farmer, 543 F.3d at 375 (“We have no reason to believe that the district court would not have selected an even lower sentence if given the opportunity to do so, thus, we must remand.”).