Opinion ID: 575892
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Responsibility for Drugs Sold by Zarazua-Lopez

Text: 9 The government also contended below and on appeal that under Sentencing Guideline section 1B1.3, Zarazua-Lopez's drug dealing activities could be imputed to Sanchez-Luna, as they constituted acts aided and abetted by [Sanchez-Luna], or for which [he] would be otherwise accountable, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, ... or that otherwise were in furtherance of that offense[.] U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1). The government cites United States v. LaFraugh, 893 F.2d 314, 317-18 (11th Cir.1990), which held that in calculating the base offense level of a defendant who pled guilty to conspiring to commit long distance telephone access code fraud, the district court did not err in attributing to him all losses caused by the conspiracy, rather than just those for which he was directly responsible. 10 Sanchez-Luna was not charged with, nor did he plead guilty to, conspiring with Zarazua-Lopez. Although the presentence report cites evidence that might support a finding that Sanchez-Luna and Zarazua-Lopez were conspirators, neither the probation officer nor the district court made such a finding. As noted, the probation officer found Sanchez-Luna responsible only for the drugs he himself sold and for those found in his residence. 11 Further, if the drugs for which the probation officer found Zarazua-Lopez responsible had been added to the 28.41 grams for which he found Sanchez-Luna responsible, the appropriate offense level would have been 26. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(9) (base offense level is 26 for at least 100 but less than 400 grams of heroin). Although government counsel urged the court not to go above a base offense level of 20 by taking all the drugs into consideration, a decision to hold Sanchez-Luna responsible for some but not all of the drugs Zarazua-Lopez dealt and to choose an offense level lower than the one provided by the relevant Guidelines would require a statement that the court had made factual findings as to the existence of certain circumstances, not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines, that warranted a downward departure, and would require an explanation of the extent of the departure. See United States v. Lira-Barraza, 941 F.2d 745, 746, 751 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc).