United States v. Gustavo Buenrostro
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4913
7th Cir.2015Background
- Gustavo Buenrostro and Ambrosio Medrano were convicted of conspiracy to commit bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 371/§ 666 after participating in an FBI sting; the purported corrupt official and contract were fictional.
- Scheme involved paying a $10,000 bribe (Barta paid $6,500; Buenrostro and Medrano owed the remainder) to secure a Los Angeles County pharmaceutical-dispensing contract for Sav-Rx.
- The undercover “consultant” Castro (an FBI agent) and cooperating witness Michael DiFoggio solicited the bribe; no real county official existed.
- Defendants argued insufficiency of evidence on two statutory financial elements of § 666: (1) that the subject contract was worth $5,000+, and (2) that the bribed person was an agent of an entity receiving $10,000+ in federal funds.
- A co-defendant, Barta, won reversal on entrapment in a separate opinion; Buenrostro and Medrano did not (and could not) assert entrapment here.
- Medrano separately challenged the substantive reasonableness of his consecutive 30‑month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: $5,000 element (value of transaction) | Gov: value can be inferred from the agreed bribe and projected contract benefits | Buenrostro/Medrano: bribe amount alone insufficient; Barta’s payment was a favor; value must be objectively proven | Court: Affirmed — bribe amount and other proof (plans to relocate, projected prescription volume) suffice as proxy for value |
| Sufficiency: $10,000 element (agent of entity receiving federal funds) | Gov: jury could infer the fictional official was an agent of Los Angeles County, which received $10,000+ | Defs: Castro’s references suggested the official worked for a county department (Dept. of Health Services), and no evidence showed that department received $10,000+ federally | Court: Affirmed — an official can be agent of a department and the county; jury reasonably found the agent-of-county element satisfied |
| Sentencing: consecutive 30‑month term for Medrano | Medrano: district court abused discretion; should have imposed concurrent sentence and explicitly addressed §3553 factors | Gov: district court properly exercised discretion, explained reasons (culpability, history, deterrence) | Court: Affirmed — no abuse; judge adequately considered factors and justified consecutive below-guidelines term |
| Procedural sufficiency at sentencing | Medrano: judge failed to address each §3553 and Guideline factor specifically | Gov: transcript shows considered, measured discussion; no requirement to recite every nuance | Court: Affirmed — sentencing procedure and explanation were sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Barta, 776 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2015) (related entrapment decision for co‑defendant)
- United States v. Robinson, 663 F.3d 265 (7th Cir. 2011) (bribe amount may serve as proxy for value under § 666)
- United States v. Owens, 697 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2012) (valuation via expected benefit to bribe‑giver)
- United States v. Reed, 744 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Jones, 713 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2013) (clarifying appellate review does not reweigh evidence)
- United States v. Pretty, 98 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 1996) (official may be agent of both subordinate and overarching government entity)
- United States v. Agostino, 132 F.3d 1183 (7th Cir. 1997) (employee may be agent of multiple governmental entities)
- United States v. Collins, 640 F.3d 265 (7th Cir. 2011) (district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences)