United States v. Marquez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14843
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Marquez was convicted by a jury of, among other counts, possession with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine after arranging a one‑pound meth purchase from an Arizona supplier.
- He recruited two women (Hernandez and Galvan) to drive to Arizona, pick up the meth, and transport it back to Las Cruces; he provided money, coordinated by phone/text, and debriefed them on return.
- At sentencing the PSR recommended a two‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) for being an organizer/leader of the two couriers; the district court adopted the enhancement but gave only a brief, conclusory explanation.
- Marquez’s counsel did not lodge a contemporaneous procedural objection at sentencing; the district court then imposed a below‑Guidelines sentence of 130 months.
- On appeal Marquez challenged (1) the procedural adequacy of the court’s reasons for the § 3B1.1 enhancement and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting that enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court procedurally erred by failing to clearly articulate factual findings supporting a § 3B1.1(c) enhancement | Government: district court sufficiently identified and relied on the facts relating to the two couriers supporting enhancement | Marquez: court gave only a conclusory statement and failed to make the specific factual findings required; counsel lacked opportunity to object | Court: There was plain error in form (conclusory remark), but no prejudice—sentence was supported by the evidence so substantial rights not affected; affirmed |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support § 3B1.1(c) organizer/leader role | Government: evidence showed Marquez arranged sale, recruited couriers, provided funds, coordinated trip, and directed delivery | Marquez: he did not exercise control; couriers sometimes acted independently; it was a one‑off transaction | Court: under clearly erroneous standard, evidence viewed favorably to district court supports finding Marquez coordinated/oversaw the operation and qualifies as an organizer; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Uscanga‑Mora, 562 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2009) (plain‑error review and prejudice standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- United States v. Chisum, 502 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2007) (district court must make specific findings to support § 3B1.1 enhancement)
- United States v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 1996) (articulating need for factual basis for § 3B1.1 findings)
- United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453 (10th Cir. 1995) (district court must make findings, not conclusions)
- United States v. Wardell, 591 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2009) (organizer status can exist without hierarchical control; coordinating and providing wherewithal suffices)
- United States v. Tagore, 158 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 1998) (gravamen of § 3B1.1 is exercise of control or organization of others)
- United States v. Pena‑Hermosillo, 522 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for leader/organizer determination)
- United States v. Beltran, 571 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2009) (review view evidence in light most favorable to district court when assessing enhancements)
- United States v. Torres, 53 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 1995) (buyer/seller relationships alone do not justify § 3B1.1 enhancement)
- United States v. Sallis, 533 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2008) (supplying drugs on credit or fronting, without more, is not a basis for enhancement)
- United States v. Steele, 603 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 2010) (court’s closing question whether there is "anything further" can provide opportunity to object)
- United States v. Luna‑Acosta, 715 F.3d 860 (10th Cir. 2013) (district courts may correct oral sentencing errors before adjournment)
- United States v. Gantt, 679 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2012) (procedural challenges ordinarily require an objection after sentence announced)