United States v. Benito Mojica
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12662
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- FBI investigated a large-scale cocaine-trafficking organization led by Jose de Jesus Ramirez‑Padilla ("Gallo"); court‑authorized wiretaps and other evidence led to indictments including Benito Mojica.
- Gallo asked Mojica to let Gallo’s brothers use Mojica’s rented second‑floor apartment (May–Sept 2012) as a stash house; agents found cash, scales, drugs and phones in that unit.
- Agents arrested Mojica at his home and obtained the garage key from him; Mojica’s wife, Sonia, signed written consent to search the detached garage, where agents found cocaine, baggies, phones and a notepad linking Gallo’s number.
- Mojica moved to suppress the garage evidence, arguing Sonia lacked authority to consent; the district court denied suppression, finding Sonia had apparent (and actual) authority.
- At trial the jury convicted Mojica on multiple drug and phone‑offense counts; at sentencing the PSR attributed 18.084 kg of cocaine to Mojica (1 kg/week for 18 weeks plus 84 g), producing a Guidelines range the court adopted and imposed a 121‑month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of garage search (consent) | Sonia lacked authority to consent because she did not have the garage key and rarely used the garage | Agents reasonably relied on Sonia’s apparent authority as Mojica’s spouse and no one told agents she was denied access | Denial of suppression affirmed: Sonia had apparent authority; search lawful |
| Drug‑quantity attribution for sentencing | 18.084 kg is unsupported; record shows lower amounts and periods when Gallo lacked supply | PSR and trial evidence (Gallo’s testimony, wiretaps, seizure) support a conservative 1 kg/week estimate; court may make reasonable estimates | Sentence affirmed: district court did not clearly err in attributing 18.084 kg |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Duran, 957 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1992) (spouse presumptively has authority to consent to search of the homestead)
- United States v. Groves, 530 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2008) (factors for evaluating third‑party authority include possession of keys but no single factor is dispositive)
- United States v. Wright, 838 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2016) (consent is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement)
- United States v. Gevedon, 214 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for suppression findings: factual findings for clear error, mixed questions de novo)
- United States v. Bozovich, 782 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2015) (drug‑quantity findings at sentencing require a preponderance of the evidence; reasonable imprecise estimates permissible)
- United States v. Melendez, 819 F.3d 1006 (7th Cir. 2016) (appellate review of district court’s sentencing fact‑finding is for clear error)