United States v. Jose Jaime Lopez
907 F.3d 537
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- DEA intercepted calls in Sept 2014 (pursuant to a Maryland order) revealing Moreno arranged to send drugs to Lopez via courier Salinas; Salinas brought ~276.4 g (≈10 oz) methamphetamine to Illinois but was arrested at the bus stop.
- Lopez arranged for friend Linares to pick up Salinas at the bus stop and coordinated payment and delivery; cell-site/location data and surveillance corroborated the plan.
- By 2015 agents completed three controlled buys from Lopez; a 2016 search of his home recovered scales, packaging equipment, address books linking Lopez to Salinas/Linares.
- Indictment charged Lopez with, among other counts, attempted possession with intent to distribute ≥50 g methamphetamine; jury convicted on all counts and found the ≥50 g special finding.
- Before sentencing the government filed a § 851 information relying on two prior drug convictions to seek mandatory life under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii); one predicate was a 1999 Texas guilty plea followed by deferred adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lopez) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of intercepted calls under 18 U.S.C. § 2518 / Fourth Amendment | Intercepts should be suppressed because the state order failed to specify facility/location and agents may have intercepted outside Maryland | Order complied with § 2518; listening post was in Maryland and district court correctly denied suppression | Affirmed: Lopez failed to rebut district court’s factual finding that listening post and monitoring occurred in Maryland; suppression claim waived on appeal for lack of record development |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted possession with intent to distribute ≥50 g meth | Government did not prove Lopez had the specific intent to distribute or took a substantial step toward the offense | Intercepts, witness testimony (Salinas, Linares), and physical evidence show Lopez arranged receipt of ~10 oz, coordinated pickup, payment terms, and attempted contacts after arrests | Affirmed: Evidence viewed favorably to prosecution supports intent to possess and distribute and that Lopez took substantial steps toward the crime |
| Whether Lopez’s 1999 deferred-adjudication guilty plea counts as a "prior conviction" for § 841 enhancement | Deferred adjudication that was later discharged is not a conviction for § 841 enhancement | Federal law treats a guilty plea followed by probation/deferred adjudication as a conviction for federal purposes (Dickerson) | Affirmed: Court follows Dickerson and circuit precedent; the 1999 plea qualifies as a prior conviction |
| Procedural compliance with 21 U.S.C. § 851(b) at sentencing | District court failed to conduct the § 851(b) colloquy (ask defendant to affirm/deny prior convictions & warn about waiver) — warrants remand | Government concedes error but urges harmlessness because Lopez never disputed the factual existence of the prior plea and raised only legal challenges | Affirmed: § 851(b) omission was error but harmless here because Lopez did not contest the factual existence of the conviction; court admonishes strict compliance with § 851 going forward |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (Sup. Ct.) (guilty plea followed by deferred judgment/probation constitutes a conviction for federal-disability purposes)
- United States v. Cisneros, 112 F.3d 1272 (5th Cir.) (deferred adjudication in Texas counts as a prior conviction under § 841)
- United States v. Graham, 315 F.3d 777 (7th Cir.) (deferred or expunged state dispositions can qualify as prior convictions under § 841)
- Arreola-Castillo v. United States, 889 F.3d 378 (7th Cir.) (procedures and burdens under 21 U.S.C. § 851 govern sentencing enhancements)
- United States v. Williams, 298 F.3d 688 (7th Cir.) (harmlessness analysis for § 851 procedural errors)