United States v. Frausto
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8175
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- DEA confidential source recorded meetings with Frausto; first sale: one pound of meth on Jan 8, 2009, in Omaha.
- Frausto organized a second sale: four pounds to the source's fictitious partner on Jan 18, 2009; co-conspirators executed.
- Vehicle pursuit yielded four pounds seized from co-conspirators' car; money and weapons recovered in Omaha home.
- Frausto pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50g+ meth, triggering a 10-year mandatory minimum; guidelines yielded 235–293 months.
- District court applied a two-level leadership enhancement, denied dangerous-weapon enhancement, denied safety-valve relief, and sentenced Frausto to 240 months; defendant appeals on leadership, safety-valve, and substantive reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Frausto qualifies for the §3B1.1(c) enhancement | Frausto argues he was not an organizer/leader | Government shows Frausto orchestrated two sales and directed co-conspirators | Frausto qualifies for §3B1.1(c) enhancement |
| Whether the district court erred in denying safety-valve relief | Frausto cannot be organizer/leader per safety valve | If §3B1.1(c) applies, safety valve relief is unavailable | Safety-valve relief correctly denied |
| Whether the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable | Frausto claims unwarranted disparity and procedural error | Sentence within guidelines and presumptively reasonable; disparity not unwarranted given roles | Sentence within guidelines; substantively reasonable; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. De Oliveira, 623 F.3d 593 (8th Cir. 2010) (broad construction of organizer/leader terms under §3B1.1(c))
- United States v. Adamson, 608 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2010) (factors for identifying organizer/leader conduct)
- United States v. Bonilla-Filomeno, 579 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2009) (safety-valve relief and leadership findings interplay)
- United States v. Williams, 605 F.3d 556 (8th Cir. 2010) (disparity arguments within within-guidelines sentence context)
- United States v. Salas-Barraza, 579 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2009) (assistance reduced sentence affecting disparity analysis)