Opinion ID: 66547
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedure: Calculation of Drug Quantity

Text: Ordonez argues that the district court erroneously overruled his objection to the amount of drugs for which he was being held responsible. He argues that he admitted these drug amounts “in a spirit of full cooperation” before counsel could obtain an agreement from the Government not to use such statements against him. Ordonez concedes that there was no formal agreement under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(a) that would prevent the use of such information. He argues, however, that the use of the information unfairly increases his sentence and violates the sentencing goals of § 3553(a). This court reviews a district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo. Gonzalez, 445 F. 3d at 817. Accordingly, Ordonez’s arguments regarding the use of his debriefing information are subject to de novo review. Where a defendant agrees to cooperate with the government by providing information concerning unlawful activities of others, and as part of that cooperation agreement the government agrees that self-incriminating information provided pursuant to the agreement will not be used against the defendant, then such information shall not be used in determining the applicable guideline range, except to the extent provided in the agreement. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(a) The Guidelines explicitly require a court to enforce an agreement by the Government that it will not use self-incriminating information against the defendant in calculation of a sentence. Id. Ordonez concedes that there was no such agreement in this case. Accordingly, the district court’s use of the debriefing information was not contrary to the Guidelines. To the extent Ordonez argues that the district court committed procedural error by failing to take his cooperation into account when considering the sentencing factors of § 3553(a), his argument is without merit. A district court is required to consider the § 3553(a) factors when determining an appropriate 5 No. 08-10752 sentence. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. These factors include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment, the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and the need to protect the public from further crimes. § 3553(a). At sentencing, the district court stated that it would take the extent of Ordonez’s cooperation with authorities during his debriefing into account when determining what sentence to impose. The record does not support Ordonez’s argument that the district court’s consideration of the debriefing information resulted in an unfair sentence. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597.