Opinion ID: 203972
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Calderón

Text: The court assigned Calderón a BOL of 38, which was then increased by two levels for his having possessed firearms while part of the drug conspiracy, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), and adjusted upward by three levels for his having managed or supervised a criminal activity that had at least five participants or was otherwise extensive, id. § 3B1.1(c). The resulting total offense level of 43 combined with a criminal history category of I to yield a sentencing range of 360 months to life. The court sentenced him to a non-guidelines sentence of 216 months imprisonment. The district court found that Calderón was responsible for 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, concluding that such quantity was foreseeable to Calderón. Id. § 1B1.3 application note 2 (noting that a drug conspirator is responsible for all reasonably foreseeable quantities of contraband that were within the scope of the criminal activity that he jointly undertook). The record evidence showed that Calderón personally handled marijuana only. On appeal, Calderón argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that he could reasonably foresee this quantity of crack cocaine. [16] It is true that the court did not cite, and the government has not identified, a direct link between Calderón and crack distribution. Neither of the cooperating witnesses testified that Calderón attended meetings where drug amounts were discussed, nor did they testify that Calderón was physically present in the square when crack was being sold. That said, we cannot say the district court's finding was clearly erroneous. Calderón was an active point owner in the drug distribution conspiracy for at least three years. Although Calderón himself specialized in marijuana in La Placida during those years, his co-conspirators dealt large quantities of crack in the same square at the same time. Rosario alone, with whom Calderón shared a common marijuana seller named Cheo, operated a drug point in the housing project that sold approximately fifty-four kilograms of crack during the life of the conspiracy. Ultimately, given the staggering amount of crack that was being cooked, packaged, and sold in La Placida during the three years that Calderón was a member of the conspiracy, the sentencing court did not clearly err in finding that Calderón would have reasonably foreseen the 1.5 kilograms of crack the district court assigned to him. Calderón also argues that his sentence of 216 months imprisonment  well below the guideline sentencing range applicable to him  is substantively unreasonable because it was unjustifiably more severe than the sentences imposed on three co-defendants who pled guilty. We disagree. As we have said before, § 3553(a)(6) aims primarily at the minimization of disparities among defendants nationally. Martin, 520 F.3d at 87. Moreover, the more severe sentence imposed on Calderón was justified because he and his co-defendants were not similarly situated: they pled guilty; he went to trial. There is a material difference between defendants who plead guilty and those who elect to go to trial, and any sentencing disparity that results from that difference is not unreasonable. United States v. Rodriguez-Lozada, 558 F.3d 29, 45 (1st Cir.2009) (citation omitted).