Opinion ID: 198294
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Factual Findings at Sentencing

Text: 113 In challenging his sentence, Ortiz-Miranda argues that the district court erroneously attributed 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base to him based upon extrapolating from an average dosage amount. Upon review, we conclude that the record supports the district court's determination. 114 The district court properly considered testimony concerning at least ten total cocaine base deliveries directly involving Ortiz-Miranda at the puntos in Arecibo and Vega Baja. This estimate was based upon the trial testimony of Garca-Otero and testimony at the hearing on the motion for a new trial. In addition, Ortiz-Miranda had been arrested at the Arecibo location with approximately 596 capsules of cocaine base in July 1994, and Ortiz-Baez had been arrested near there in 1995 with over 1200 capsules containing a total amount of 196 grams of cocaine base. 115 Garca-Otero testified that at least 500 capsules of cocaine base were distributed on a weekly basis in Vega Baja, and that Ortiz-Miranda made approximately six deliveries. Thus, a conservative estimate of Ortiz-Miranda's direct involvement with 6,000 capsules at the two locations would yield one kilogram of cocaine base and a higher weight of the total mixture containing it, the capsules. See USCG § 2D1.1(c)(A) (weight of a controlled substance ... refers to the weight of any mixture or substance containing [it]). In addition, the district court could reasonably infer that the additional deliveries of at least 3,000 capsules, yielding approximately another one-half kilogram of cocaine base to the Arecibo location would have been reasonably foreseeable to Ortiz-Miranda as part of the conspiracy. Here, even using a conservative estimate, the district court properly attributed 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base to Ortiz-Miranda.
116 Eulalio Candelaria-Silva argues that, because the firearms seized from the Sabana Seca buildings were out of reach, not used, and not definitively linked to him, the district court erred in imposing the two-level increase to his guidelines offense level pursuant to USCG § 2D1.1(b)(1). However, at sentencing, Candelaria failed to challenge the link between himself and the firearms. As a result, we reject his claim. See Barnett, 989 F.2d at 554 (raise-or-waive rule not relaxed where evidence supports sentencing findings). 117 At sentencing, the district court correctly rejected Candelaria's claim that a relationship between the drugs and the firearms was clearly improbable. 4/19/96 Tr. at 12. Specifically, the district court determined that in the context of the evidence ... there [was] no doubt ... that the weapons ... had a definite, clear connection with drug trafficking. Id. at 13-14. The court stated further: 118 [T]hese were not hunting weapons. These were not a collection of weapons. This was not a weapon had, like many people do, to just defend their home in the event some burglar comes in ... These were loaded AK-47s and Ar-15s, we're talking about assault rifles. 119 Id. After reviewing the record, we uphold the district court's determination.
120 At sentencing, Ortiz-Baez acknowledged his involvement as a core member of the conspiracy. Specifically, he acknowledged working at the table in Isla Verde and going out hunting for people to kill them [during the drug war with the Rosarios]. Defendant's App. at 58. In fact, his candor so impressed the judge that the judge adjusted his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. See Ortiz-Baez Sentencing Findings at 2. 121 Ortiz-Baez now maintains, however, that the sentence imposed was exaggeratedly harsh, and alleges that the government was retaliatory in seeking a three-level, as opposed to two-level, adjustment, pursuant to USCG § 3B1.1(b), for his role in the offense. Contrary to his assertions, however, the record reflects that, because Ortiz-Baez's relevant conduct clearly involved five or more participants, he is not eligible for the mere two-level adjustment pursuant to USCG § 3B1.1(c). Thus, the district court did not clearly err.
122 Reyes-Padilla argues that the district court should have imposed a lower sentence because of her age, medical condition and rehabilitative efforts. See Defendant's Br. at 10-11. At sentencing, however, she raised none of these claims, preferring instead to argue that she had withdrawn from the conspiracy after the 1989 execution of search warrants at her Virgilio Davila apartment. See Defendant's App. at 66-79. Notwithstanding this waiver, age and health are not ordinarily relevant sentencing factors, see USCG §§ 5H1.1 & 5H1.4, and Reyes-Padilla makes no argument that age and health in this case constitute a mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission. USCG § 5K2.0. Furthermore, her rehabilitation claim is belied by the fact that, at sentencing, she refused to acknowledge participation in the conspiracy after 1989. See Defendant's App. at 71. The record supports the sentence imposed. 123 Morales-Santiago also argues that the district court erred in determining her relevant conduct, pursuant to USCG § 2D1.1, and in denying her an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to USCG § 3E1.1. See Defendant's Br. at 7-8. Although Morales-Santiago has provided no transcript of the sentencing proceedings, the available record supports the district court's determination. The record reflects that, during at least part of the conspiracy, Morales-Santiago was charged with storing large quantities of controlled substances, directly providing Israel Santiago's distributors with those controlled substances, collecting proceeds, and maintaining accounting records. As such, the expansiveness of the distribution conspiracy was reasonably foreseeable to her even though she may not have participated in every transaction. Furthermore, contrary to Morales-Santiago's assertions, the Presentence Report (PSR) at 30-31 does reflect a thorough explanation of her participation in the case at hand when viewed in the context of the trial testimony of Hidalgo and Otero-Coln. Thus, Morales-Santiago's claim has no merit.