United States v. Ismael Corrales-Portillo
779 F.3d 823
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- A grand jury charged Jose and Ismael Corrales-Portillo with conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and heroin.
- Jose pled guilty to the conspiracy count; Ismael went to trial and was convicted on all counts.
- An informant cooperating with Des Moines police arranged a drug deal involving Jose and provided detailed meeting information.
- Officers surveilled the meeting, stopped Jose’s truck, and, with consent and canine search, found drugs in the gas tank.
- The Lexus was also searched; hidden compartments were implicated though one compartment appeared empty on inspection.
- Jose was sentenced to 175 months; Ismael received concurrent 188-month sentences on all three counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion? | Ismael argues lack of corroboration and informant unreliability negate suspicion. | The government contends totality of circumstances and corroboration establish reasonable suspicion. | Yes; stop supported by reasonable suspicion. |
| Was a deliberate-ignorance instruction proper? | Ismael contends no basis to infer deliberate ignorance given the evidence. | Government argues strong evidence showing awareness and participation justifies instruction. | Yes; instruction properly given. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict Ismael on conspiracy and possession counts? | Ismael asserts lack of direct evidence tying him to the drugs and conspiracy. | Government asserts circumstantial evidence shows joint participation and knowledge. | Yes; evidence adequate for conspiracy and possession. |
| Was Ismael properly denied a 3B1.2(a) minimal-participant reduction? | Ismael argues he was a minimal participant and deserving of a reduction. | Court found substantial role and rejected reduction. | Yes; district court did not err in denying reduction. |
| Were Jose’s sentencing procedures and within-Guidelines sentence reasonable? | Jose claims procedural errors and prejudice tainted his sentence. | Court properly considered § 3553(a) factors and applied within-Guidelines range. | Yes; sentence affirmed as reasonable within the Guidelines. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clutter, 674 F.3d 980 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings; factual determinations reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Wallace, 713 F.3d 422 (8th Cir. 2013) (affirming denial of suppression absent clear error or law error)
- United States v. Bay, 662 F.3d 1033 (8th Cir. 2011) (reliability and corroboration of informants in reasonable-suspicion determinations)
- Navarette v. California, 571 U.S. 664 (U.S. 2014) (reasonable suspicion depends on content and reliability of information)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (totality of the circumstances framework for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Manes, 603 F.3d 451 (8th Cir. 2010) (informant reliability and corroboration bolster credibility for suspicion)
- United States v. Winarske, 715 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2013) (predictive information about meeting increased reliability of an informant)
- United States v. Whitehill, 532 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 2008) (deliberate ignorance instruction appropriate when evidence shows awareness but not admission)
- United States v. Patterson, 886 F.2d 217 (8th Cir. 1989) (constructive possession may be established by circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Pace, 922 F.2d 451 (8th Cir. 1990) (driver’s lack of knowledge of concealed drugs generally requires more than mere proximity)
- United States v. Johnson, 18 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 1994) (constructive possession may be inferred from joint participation)
- United States v. No Neck, 472 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard for deference to jury verdicts under reasonable doubt standard)
- United States v. Vore, 743 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 2014) (evidentiary standard for possession with intent to distribute)
- United States v. Stokes, 750 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2014) (limits of downward variance based on misstatements at sentencing)
- United States v. Wanna, 744 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2014) (reasonableness presumption for within-Guidelines sentences)