United States v. Juan Flores-Olague
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10472
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Flores-Olague operated a cocaine distribution scheme from his Medina, Wisconsin residence over a three-year period.
- Controlled buys totaling 39.1 grams occurred from September 2010 to November 2011 at his home.
- A November 17, 2011 search of the residence yielded cocaine, cash, firearms, and narcotics paraphernalia.
- Flores-Olague admitted drug dealing, illegal immigration status, and a fraudulent Social Security number during Miranda-informed interviews.
- The PSR attributed a 'stash house' role to Flores-Olague and recommended a § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement; he objected.
- He pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime; the first count was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2D1.1(b)(12) applies to Flores-Olague’s premises | Flores-Olague argues the home was not a stash house | Flores-Olague asserts the premises were not maintained primarily for drug trafficking | Enhancement warranted; home used for ongoing drug dealing and control over premises |
| Whether the district court’s sentencing remarks tainted the decision | Flores-Olague claims remarks about language status and deportability biased the sentence | Flores-Olague argues remarks were improper or prejudicial | No reversible error; remarks within permissible 3553(a) considerations |
| Whether the sentence is reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | Challenge to overall reasonableness given the enhancement | Sentence within the properly calculated guideline range | Sentence confirmed as reasonable within the advisory range |
Key Cases Cited
- Acosta, 534 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2008) (maintain meaning under 21 U.S.C. § 856 includes a range of scenarios for stash houses)
- Sanchez, 710 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2013) (frequency and significance of illicit activity at premises used for drug trafficking)
- Miller, 698 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2012) (premises used for family/home and drug dealing supports § 2D1.1(b)(12))
- Shetler, 665 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) (interpretation of § 2D1.1(b)(12) with § 856 context)
- Church, 970 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1992) (analysis of premises used for drugs and evidentiary considerations)
- McCullough, 457 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 2006) (premises maintenance concept in drug distribution context)
- Ramirez-Fuentes, 703 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2013) (admissible consideration of defendant’s history in § 3553(a) analysis)