United States v. Jose Melendez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7174
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Melendez and Craig jointly purchased heroin in bulk in Chicago (Mar–Nov 2011); Melendez introduced the supplier, pooled money with Craig, and helped weigh/divide purchases in Rockford.
- Lambert rented an apartment and vehicles for Craig, delivered heroin and proceeds, transmitted messages for the conspiracy, and cared for his children (Oct 2010–Jan 2012).
- A superseding indictment charged Melendez, Lambert, and Craig with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin; Melendez and Lambert pled guilty to the conspiracy count.
- At sentencing, the district court (relying on Melendez’s plea admissions and a written statement) found Melendez accountable for jointly purchased heroin and estimated the quantity between >3 kg and <10 kg, resulting in a guidelines range and a 135-month sentence.
- The district court calculated Lambert’s guidelines (78–97 months), considered her health, remorse, limited role, and history of recidivism and noncompliance, and imposed an 80-month within-guidelines sentence.
- Both defendants appealed; the Seventh Circuit affirmed both sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Melendez is accountable for all heroin jointly purchased with Craig | Melendez: should not be liable for Craig’s portion distributed through a separate business | District: Melendez foresaw entire joint purchases given his role (introduced supplier, pooled funds, traveled, weighed/divided) | Court: Affirmed accountability for all jointly purchased heroin; no clear error |
| Whether the district court miscalculated drug quantity for Melendez | Melendez: court overstated trips/quantity; argued 2.5 trips/week → ~10.8 trips/month leading to lower quantity | District: used Melendez’s admissions (purchase every 2.5 days → 12 trips/month) and produced two reasonable estimates (4.8 kg and 3.315 kg) | Court: Estimates were reasonable and supported >3 kg but <10 kg; no clear error |
| Whether Lambert’s health/reduced life expectancy warranted a downward variance | Lambert: serious health issues and reduced life expectancy justify sentence below guidelines | District: considered health but found not extraordinary/seriously infirm; sentence (80 months; ~68 with good time) below life expectancy estimate | Court: Affirmed; district appropriately considered and rejected downward variance on health grounds |
| Whether Lambert’s limited role, criminal history, and supervision noncompliance required below-guidelines sentence | Lambert: lesser role and limited prior history mitigate; pretrial/probation violations were explained or minor | District: acknowledged lesser role but pointed to substantial supportive acts (renting/storing, deliveries, messages), escalation in crime, and repeated supervision violations | Court: Affirmed; district’s weighing of §3553(a) factors reasonable and sentence presumptively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salem, 657 F.3d 560 (7th Cir.) (standard of review: legal issues de novo; factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Seymour, 519 F.3d 700 (7th Cir.) (co-conspirator quantity liability: reasonably foreseeable quantity)
- United States v. Bozovich, 782 F.3d 814 (7th Cir.) (drug-quantity findings may be reasonable imprecise estimates with indicia of reliability)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (substantive reasonableness review and deference to district court’s §3553(a) balancing)
- United States v. Castro-Alvarado, 755 F.3d 472 (7th Cir.) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Marin-Castano, 688 F.3d 899 (7th Cir.) (affirming within-guidelines sentence despite limited prior history)