United States v. John Doe
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2471
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Doe met twice with FBI agents seeking immigration help and provided names/phone numbers; agents did not authorize illegal activity and warned cooperation requires proven, successful assistance.
- Doe arranged and participated in three drug transactions (one failed, two completed) involving methamphetamine and cocaine with undercover buyers and confidential informants; he negotiated price, coordinated suppliers, and communicated during deals.
- At arrest and trial Doe asserted a public-authority defense (claimed he acted to assist FBI); jury convicted him on multiple drug counts; conviction was vacated on limited discovery/Brady grounds and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand the district court found the government had produced responsive documents, reinstated the verdict, and at re-sentencing imposed a two-level §3B1.1(c) organizer enhancement, denied safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(4), and denied a §3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
- This appeal challenges (1) satisfaction of Request Five/Brady disclosure, (2) the §3B1.1(c) organizer enhancement, (3) denial of safety-valve relief, and (4) denial of acceptance-of-responsibility credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Request Five was satisfied and Brady complied with | Government: produced all records responsive to targeted requests; narrower reading proper | Doe: Request Five sought any records mentioning numbers/names he gave (broad search); such records could bolster his informant defense | Court: District court did not abuse discretion; narrow, time‑limited reading appropriate; no Brady prejudice shown |
| Whether Doe qualified as an "organizer" under U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(c) | Government: Doe coordinated procurement/distribution, negotiated price, connected suppliers and buyers — organizer role | Doe: Enhancement requires supervision/control over participants; he merely facilitated | Court: Affirmed; organizer includes those who coordinate activities to complete transactions even without hierarchical control (clear‑error review) |
| Whether organizer enhancement bars safety‑valve relief under 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(4) | Government: Organizer enhancement makes defendant ineligible | Doe: Contends he should still qualify | Court: Affirmed — as an organizer Doe is ineligible for safety‑valve relief |
| Whether Doe proved acceptance of responsibility for U.S.S.G. §3E1.1 reduction | Doe: He admitted acts and expressed remorse; trial did not preclude reduction | Government: Doe maintained at trial that he acted on behalf of FBI, denying culpable intent | Court: Affirmed denial — continued assertion of public‑authority defense incompatible with acceptance of responsibility; finding not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Varela, 993 F.2d 686 (9th Cir. 1993) (organizer enhancement applies to those who coordinate procurement/distribution even without permanent hierarchy)
- United States v. Avila, 905 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1990) (organizer status supported where defendant coordinated procurement and distribution from multiple sources)
- United States v. Montano, 250 F.3d 709 (9th Cir. 2001) (organizer enhancement appropriate where defendant coordinated smuggling logistics without supervisory hierarchy)
- United States v. Whitney, 673 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2012) (facilitating role alone insufficient for §3B1.1(c); need evidence of control or organizing others)
- United States v. Bonilla-Guizar, 729 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2013) (clarified remand standard for resolving whether defendant supervised a participant)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009) (statutory construction principle: give effect to all provisions)
- United States v. Burrows, 36 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 1994) (continued insistence on public‑authority defense after trial incompatible with acceptance of responsibility)