Court Opinion

ID: 9939988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 16:01:00.612421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:10.168117
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-7062       Document: 010110999520         Date Filed: 02/13/2024      Page: 1
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                           United States Court of Appeals
                         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            Tenth Circuit

                               FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                             February 13, 2024
                           _________________________________
                                                                               Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                   Clerk of Court
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

          Plaintiff - Appellee,

     v.                                                           No. 22-7062
                                                       (D.C. No. 6:19-CR-00073-RAW-2)
     JOSE MIGUEL PACHECO,                                         (E.D. Okla.)

          Defendant - Appellant.
                         _________________________________

                               ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                           _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

          Defendant Jose Miguel Pacheco is one of twenty-nine defendants charged with

 conspiring to distribute narcotics in a large-scale trafficking organization run by his cousin,

 Enrique Pacheco. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to

 distribute methamphetamine in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges against

 him. At sentencing, the district court relied on Defendant’s coconspirators’ statements in

 formal interviews with law enforcement to increase Defendant’s drug quantity. The district

 *
   After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
 except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
 may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-7062     Document: 010110999520         Date Filed: 02/13/2024     Page: 2

 court further applied a four-level upward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for

 Defendant’s role as an organizer/leader in the conspiracy. The district court sentenced

 Defendant to a 274-month, within-Guidelines imprisonment sentence.              On appeal,

 Defendant challenges the district court’s calculation of his drug quantity, the enhancement,

 and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.         Exercising jurisdiction under

 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

                                              I.

        In September 2019, a federal grand jury returned a twenty-five-count indictment

 charging twenty-nine defendants with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and

 heroin, among other charges, in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Defendant was named

 in seven counts. The Government alleged that Enrique Pacheco, Defendant’s cousin,

 operated a large-scale drug trafficking organization from his cell in the Oklahoma State

 Penitentiary while serving a life sentence for first-degree murder. Enrique Pacheco used a

 contraband cell phone to communicate with drug suppliers in Mexico, his distribution

 network, and family members involved in the operation. The Government identified

 Defendant as a distributor of Enrique Pacheco’s methamphetamine in Muskogee,

 Oklahoma. In July 2021, Defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count Five

 of the indictment, possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of

 methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(C). In exchange,

 the Government dismissed the remaining six counts against Defendant.

        The Government’s primary evidence against Defendant comes from three traffic

 stops and a series of interviews with his coconspirators. First, in September 2018,

                                              2
Appellate Case: 22-7062     Document: 010110999520          Date Filed: 02/13/2024     Page: 3

 Muskogee police attempted to stop Defendant for a traffic violation. Defendant led police

 on a short pursuit before pulling over. Police arrested him and recovered 1.92 grams of

 heroin, 28.25 grams of methamphetamine, and $1,150 cash. In November 2018, Defendant

 led Fort Gibson Police on a 100-mile-per-hour high speed pursuit. Defendant eventually

 drove through a fence and into a pasture where he was forced to stop. He fled on foot while

 police interrogated his female passenger, Krystal Mayen. She identified Defendant as the

 driver. Police retraced Defendant’s flight path and discovered that he discarded 152.35

 grams of methamphetamine, 7.38 grams of heroin, 13.71 grams of cocaine, .3 grams of

 marijuana, 97 Xanax tablets, and 5 Oxycodone tablets. This arrest formed the factual basis

 for Count Five of the indictment, to which Defendant pleaded guilty. Finally, in April

 2019, Defendant led Muskogee police on a third pursuit, this time driving through two

 police roadblocks. Defendant and his seventeen-year-old passenger Lannie Jo Carter

 discarded multiple bags out of the car’s windows as they drove. Defendant eventually

 stopped in a field and police forcibly detained him. Officers recovered $772 cash, a

 Mossberg rifle with ammunition, and 8.54 grams of heroin. Carter later told police they

 discarded four firearms during the pursuit. Carter also said Defendant instructed her to tell

 police the Mossberg rifle belonged to her.

                                              3
Appellate Case: 22-7062    Document: 010110999520       Date Filed: 02/13/2024       Page: 4

       Defendant’s coconspirators provided information about his alleged role in the drug

 trafficking organization in formal interviews with the Government. At sentencing, the

 Government used information from the interviews to estimate the drug quantities

 Defendant was responsible for distributing:

     Codefendant Krystal Mayen told investigators she traveled to Oklahoma City
      with Defendant on five separate occasions for Defendant to purchase
      methamphetamine from suppliers at the direction of Enrique Pacheco.
      Mayen also disclosed that she purchased methamphetamine for Defendant
      from the same suppliers.

     Codefendant Lannie Jo Carter advised she worked with the organization
      beginning in November 2018. She told investigators she went with
      Defendant to pick up methamphetamine in Oklahoma City three to four times
      per week from suppliers named “Primo” and “Tony.” She advised Defendant
      bought one pound to multi-pound quantities each time and redistributed it in
      ounce to multi-ounce quantities to his own and Enrique Pacheco’s customers.
      The Government attributed 48 ounces of methamphetamine to Defendant
      based on his purchases in Oklahoma City with Carter.

     Codefendant Shaina Johnson, Mayen’s stepsister, corroborated Mayen and
      Carter’s statements that Defendant always purchased multi-pound amounts
      of methamphetamine from suppliers. Johnson also admitted to working for
      Enrique Pacheco.

     Jordan Brown, Enrique Pacheco’s former brother-in-law, told investigators
      he used to distribute methamphetamine for Enrique Pacheco. Brown advised
      he began purchasing one-ounce quantities of methamphetamine from
      Defendant in early 2018 while completing a six-month drug rehab program.
      After rehab, Brown bought three to four ounces per day from Defendant until
      Brown’s arrest in October 2018. When Brown was released from jail in
      November 2018, he received three to four half-pounds of methamphetamine
      from Defendant.          The Government attributed 193 ounces of
      methamphetamine to Defendant based on these distributions to Brown.

     Codefendant Feather Pacheco, Jordan Brown’s girlfriend, corroborated
      Brown’s statements. She told investigators they traveled to Muskogee two
      to three times per week in 2018 to pick up between 4 and 24 ounces of
      methamphetamine from Defendant. She recalled purchasing 16 ounces on

                                               4
Appellate Case: 22-7062     Document: 010110999520         Date Filed: 02/13/2024     Page: 5

        three specific occasions. The Government attributed 76 ounces of
        methamphetamine to Defendant based on these distributions.

     Codefendant Tabitha Bryant told investigators she bought one ounce of
      methamphetamine from Defendant four to five times in 2019. The
      Government attributed four ounces of methamphetamine to Defendant.

        The United States Probation Office (“USPO”) prepared a Presentence Investigation

 Report (“PSR”) before Defendant’s sentencing. The USPO determined that Defendant’s

 three arrests and all activities in furtherance of the distribution conspiracy—including the

 acts described by his coconspirators—were relevant conduct to his offense of conviction

 under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a). As such, the USPO added the drugs Defendant possessed

 during each arrest to the estimated amounts of methamphetamine attributed to him from

 the conspiracy to reach a total converted drug weight of 18,593.84 kilograms attributable

 to Defendant. This equates to a base offense level of 34. Relevant here, the USPO also

 recommended a four-level upward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for

 Defendant’s role as an organizer or leader in the conspiracy. Defendant filed a written

 objection to the PSR challenging the inclusion of the uncharged drug amounts and the

 organizer/leader enhancement. Defendant argued his coconspirators’ statements were

 unreliable, uncorroborated by physical evidence, and therefore should not be used to

 increase his drug quantity. He maintained his drug quantity should only reflect the amount

 he physically possessed during his arrests, which he argues would lower his base offense

 level to 32.

        The district court held a sentencing hearing in November 2022. The district court

 denied all of Defendant’s objections to the PSR. First, the court found by a preponderance

                                              5
Appellate Case: 22-7062     Document: 010110999520        Date Filed: 02/13/2024     Page: 6

 of the evidence “that the multiple statements of coconspirators in this matter are

 corroborative of one another and provide indicia of reliability.”1 R. Vol. III at 44. Next,

 the court found that the coconspirators’ statements described conduct relevant to

 Defendant’s offense of conviction. Accordingly, the court adopted the drug quantity

 recommendation in the PSR, concluding that “the drug quantities identified were

 conservatively estimated and accurately included.” Id. Second, the court overruled

 Defendant’s objection to the organizer/leader enhancement, finding by a preponderance of

 the evidence that Defendant directed at least two codefendants in a drug distribution

 organization with more than five participants. Finally, the court denied Defendant’s

 motion for a downward variance and sentenced him to a within-Guidelines sentence of 274

 months of imprisonment.

        Defendant appeals his sentence on three grounds. Defendant argues the district

 court committed two procedural errors: relying on the coconspirator statements to increase

 his drug quantity; and applying the § 3B1.1(a) organizer/leader sentencing enhancement.

 Defendant also argues his 274-month-sentence is substantively unreasonable in length. We

 disagree and affirm Defendant’s sentence.

 1
   We note the Government introduced at sentencing ten exhibits containing reports of
 the coconspirators’ formal interviews. The Government did not include these exhibits
 in the record on appeal, but the district court considered them in making its reliability
 determination.
                                             6
Appellate Case: 22-7062     Document: 010110999520          Date Filed: 02/13/2024     Page: 7

                                              II.

        “We review sentences for reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion

 standard.” United States v. Haley, 529 F.3d 1308, 1311 (10th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

 “Our review includes both procedural reasonableness, which encompasses the manner in

 which a sentence was calculated, and substantive reasonableness, which concerns the

 length of the sentence.” United States v. Caiba-Antele, 705 F.3d 1162, 1165 (10th Cir.

 2012) (citation omitted). A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court

 incorrectly calculates the Guidelines range or relies on clearly erroneous facts. Haley, 529

 F.3d at 1311. A sentence is substantively unreasonable if its length is unreasonable “given

 the totality of the circumstances in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id. (citation

 omitted).

                                              A.

        Defendant first argues the district court procedurally erred in calculating his base

 offense level by relying on his coconspirators’ statements to increase his drug quantity.

 When a defendant is convicted of possession with intent to distribute, his sentencing

 range—and, more specifically, his base offense level—depends on the underlying drug

 quantity. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). The government has the burden of proving drug quantity

 by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Ruiz-Castro, 92 F.3d 1519, 1534

 (10th Cir. 1996). We review factual findings regarding drug quantities for clear error and

 reverse “only if the district court's finding was without factual support in the record or we

 are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” United States

 v. Dalton, 409 F.3d 1247, 1251 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). When the physical

                                              7
Appellate Case: 22-7062      Document: 010110999520         Date Filed: 02/13/2024      Page: 8

 drugs underlying a drug quantity determination are not seized, the district court may rely

 upon an estimate to establish the defendant’s base offense level “so long as the information

 relied upon has some basis of support in the facts of the particular case and bears sufficient

 indicia of reliability.” Id. at 1251. (emphasis added) (citation omitted). This includes

 information about drug quantity contained in hearsay statements. Untied States v. Ruby,

 706 F.3d 1221, 1227 (10th Cir. 2013).

        Upon review of the record, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in

 relying upon Defendant’s coconspirators’ statements to estimate Defendant’s drug

 quantity. The district court found that the multiple coconspirators’ independent statements

 to law enforcement contained sufficient indicia of reliability because they were consistent

 and corroborated one another.        Indeed, there are many details about Defendant’s

 distribution activities that were corroborated by more than one coconspirator: Krystal

 Mayen and Lannie Carter both told investigators Defendant sold methamphetamine to

 Jordan Brown, which Brown confirmed; Mayen, Carter, and Shaina Johnson all reported

 that Mayen and Johnson “took care” of the methamphetamine Defendant stored at his

 apartment; Mayen and Carter both knew Defendant paid Enrique Pacheco for

 methamphetamine using “Green Dot” prepaid debit cards; and the statements of Mayen,

 Carter, Johnson, Brown, Feather Pacheco, and Tabitha Bryant all suggested Defendant

 purchased methamphetamine from suppliers in at least one-pound quantities and

 redistributed it to buyers in one-ounce or greater amounts.

        Furthermore, the coconspirator statements contain other indicia of reliability not

 explicitly relied upon by the district court. Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, there is

                                               8
Appellate Case: 22-7062      Document: 010110999520           Date Filed: 02/13/2024      Page: 9

 corroborating evidence. The Government represents that wiretap evidence substantiates

 Carter’s statement that individuals named “Primo” and “Tony” supplied methamphetamine

 to Defendant.2 Then there is the physical evidence recovered from Defendant’s arrests. In

 September 2018, officers found on Defendant’s person one plastic bag containing

 approximately one ounce of methamphetamine. In November 2018, they recovered four

 plastic bags containing approximately five total ounces of methamphetamine from

 Defendant. Defendant’s possession of multiple bags containing one ounce or more of

 methamphetamine is consistent with Mayen and Carter’s statements that Defendant

 redistributed methamphetamine in at least one-ounce quantities. Finally, we note each

 coconspirator implicated him or herself in criminal liability. Bryant, Brown, and Feather

 Pacheco admitted to purchasing multiple ounces of methamphetamine from Defendant,

 and Mayen, Carter, Johnson, Brown, and Pacheco all admitted to distributing drugs with

 or for Enrique Pacheco or Defendant. Cf. United States v. Garcia, 78 F.3d 1457, 1467

 (10th Cir. 1996) (“[t]he fact that [an informant] testified regarding conduct that could

 incriminate him in further criminal liability also enhances the reliability of his statements”).

 Considering the consistency between the six coconspirators’ statements, the corroborating

 evidence, and their self-inculpatory nature, we conclude the district court did not clearly

 err in relying upon relying upon the coconspirator statements to calculate Defendant’s drug

 quantity.

 2
  Defendant-Appellant did not file a reply brief responding to this point. Although the
 specific statements the Government references are not in the record, the PSR shows a
 United States District Judge approved a police wiretap of Enrique Pacheco’s phone on
 July 11, 2019. R. Vol. II at 85.
                                                9
Appellate Case: 22-7062      Document: 010110999520          Date Filed: 02/13/2024         Page: 10

                                               B.

         Defendant next argues the district court procedurally erred in applying the four-level

  organizer/leader enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Section 3B1.1(a) provides: “If

  the Defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more

  participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 4 levels.” The application notes

  provide guidance for identifying who qualifies as an organizer or leader:

         Factors the court should consider include the exercise of decision making
         authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the
         recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of
         the crime, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense,
         the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and
         authority exercised over others.

  U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n. 4. A defendant need only organize or lead one other participant

  to qualify for the enhancement. United States v. Damato, 672 F.3d 832, 847 (10th Cir.

  2012); see also U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n. 1 (“A ‘participant’ is a person who is criminally

  responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted”).

         The district court found that Defendant was part of Enrique Pacheco’s large-scale

  drug distribution organization involving more than five participants. The district court also

  made several specific factual findings that Defendant organized or led at least one

  participant:

         Information identified in the offense conduct section of the presentence report
         indicates that, at minimum, the defendant directed two codefendants with
         regard to obtaining and distributing controlled substances and drug proceeds;
         directed another codefendant to claim ownership of a firearm that he was given
         as payment for methamphetamine when he was arrested and in possession of
         that firearm; served as a principal supplier of controlled substances to other
         dealers for further distribution; and exercised decision-making authority with
         regard to where controlled substances were being stored.

                                               10
Appellate Case: 22-7062      Document: 010110999520           Date Filed: 02/13/2024      Page: 11

  R. Vol. III at 46. Defendant does not dispute the district court’s factual findings. Rather,

  he argues they do not relate to his offense of conviction, possession with intent to distribute,

  which involved only two participants.3

         Defendant’s argument is foreclosed by our precedent and the Guidelines’ plain

  language. In determining whether § 3B1.1 applies, the district court must consider “all

  relevant conduct, rather than . . . acts cited in the counts of conviction alone.” United

  States v. Hunsaker, 65 F.4th 1223, 1227 (10th Cir. 2023) (citing § 3B1.1 intro. cmt. (“The

  determination of a defendant’s role in the offense is to be made on the basis of all conduct

  within the scope of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct), i.e., all conduct included under

  § 1B1.3(a)(1)-(4), and not solely on the basis of elements and acts cited in the count of

  conviction.”)). Defendant does not dispute the district court’s finding that his activities

  related to the distribution conspiracy with Enrique Pacheco’s organization were relevant

  conduct, or that the organization had more than five participants. Accordingly, the district

  court did not err in applying § 3B1.1.

                                                III.

         Lastly, Defendant argues his 274-month, within-Guidelines sentence was

  substantively unreasonable. We disagree. “A sentence is only substantively unreasonable

  if it exceeds the bounds of permissible choice, given the facts and the applicable law.”

  3
    The Government argues Defendant changed his theory on appeal and his argument
  should therefore be subject to plain error review. We need not decide whether
  Defendant’s objection was preserved because his argument fails even under less-
  scrutinous abuse of discretion review.
                                                11
Appellate Case: 22-7062     Document: 010110999520        Date Filed: 02/13/2024     Page: 12

  United States v. Woody, 45 F.4th 1166, 1180 (10th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation omitted).

  Moreover, we presume a sentence is reasonable if it is within the properly calculated

  Guidelines range. Id. Defendant failed to rebut this presumption.

        Defendant argues the district court gave too little weight to his mitigating

  characteristics and invites us to reweigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. But

  the district court thoroughly weighed the § 3553(a) factors and explicitly considered

  Defendant’s family dynamics, upbringing, early exposure to drugs, lengthy substance

  abuse history, and criminal history in arriving at a sentence below the median of his 262-

  327-month Guidelines imprisonment range. We decline to reweigh the § 3553(a) factors

  because doing so “is beyond the ambit of our review.” United States v. Lawless, 979 F.3d

  849, 856 (10th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, Defendant failed to show his sentence was

  substantively unreasonable.

                                             ***

        We conclude Defendant’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable and

  therefore AFFIRM the district court’s imposition of sentence.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Bobby R. Baldock
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             12