United States v. Edwin Sanchez
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4647
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Edwin Sanchez participated in a large drug conspiracy (2007–2009) distributing cocaine; he received shipments from Gascar-Corona and sold large quantities, earning about $2.5 million; he used his home and garage to receive, store, and settle drug proceeds; he lived with family in the residence used for drug transactions; he pleaded guilty in 2011 to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine; the PSR added a two-point enhancement for maintaining premises for drug manufacturing/distribution under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) which Sanchez challenged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex post facto applicability of § 2D1.1(b)(12) | Sanchez: enhancement effective after offense violates ex post facto | Sanchez: enhancement is advisory; post-enactment amendments do not violate ex post facto | Ex post facto claim rejected; advisory guidelines amendments do not violate ex post facto. |
| Whether § 2D1.1(b)(12) applies given facts | Sanchez: premises not primarily used for drug distribution; home used for family residence | Premises had primary drug-related use; substantial illicit activity occurred there | Enhancement applies; premises served as primary or substantial site for drug distribution and finance. |
| Procedural error regarding disparities with co-defendant | Sanchez: district court failed to consider potential disparity with Gascar-Corona | Court could rely on Guidelines and needed speculation about co-defendant sentence is inappropriate | No procedural error; court could and did consider other relevant factors; disparities need not be speculative. |
| Substantive reasonableness given cooperation | Sanchez cooperated but tips yielded little; sentence should be lower due to cooperation | Cooperation had limited value; district court balanced it against other factors | Sentence within Guidelines range not abused; cooperation considered but not overborne by other factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Demaree, 459 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 2006) (amendments to advisory guidelines do not implicate ex post facto clause)
- United States v. Robertson, 662 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2011) (reiterates ex post facto stance on guideline amendments)
- United States v. Wasson, 679 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2012) (supporting ex post facto position on amendments)
- United States v. Conrad, 673 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2012) (ex post facto analysis of advisory guidelines)
- United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2012) (applies § 2D1.1(b)(12) using frequency and significance of illicit use of premises)
- United States v. Church, 970 F.2d 401 (9th Cir. 1992) (premises used for drug distribution can be a primary use in residential context)