United States v. Omar Coria
692 F. App'x 300
7th Cir.2017Background
- Omar Coria joined his brother’s cocaine/heroin trafficking operation in early 2012; law enforcement was already intercepting the brother’s calls.
- Intercepted calls between Feb 21 and Mar 5, 2012 used coded terms (e.g., “motor,” “oil”) referring to drug transactions; Coria and his brother were arrested with 20 kg of hidden heroin.
- A jury convicted Coria of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and heroin, possession with intent to distribute, and using a phone in the conspiracy; Counts carried statutory minimums (120 and 60 months).
- Coria proffered to qualify for the §3553(f) safety-valve, telling investigators he first joined the conspiracy on Feb 21, 2012 and described only limited involvement; he admitted seeing wrapped drug packages at his brother’s home in January but claimed no involvement then.
- The district court denied safety-valve relief, finding Coria’s proffer inconsistent with intercepted calls (which suggested he assessed drug quality before Feb 21); the court imposed the 120-month statutory minimum sentence.
- On appeal Coria argued the intercepted statements were misinterpreted and that his references to a January package did not show earlier transactional involvement; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant satisfied the §3553(f)(5) requirement to truthfully provide all information to the government | Government: intercepted calls show Coria lied about when he joined and his role, so safety-valve fails | Coria: intercepted phrase (“more soft”) referred only to the January package he observed, not to involvement in earlier sales | Court: Held government proved by preponderance that intercepted calls contradicted Coria’s proffer; safety-valve denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rebolledo-Delgadillo, 820 F.3d 870 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming denial of safety-valve where evidence contradicted defendant’s proffer)
- United States v. Montes, 381 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2004) (defendant bears preponderance burden to prove safety-valve criteria)
- United States v. Sandoval, 747 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2014) (affirming safety-valve denial when recorded conversation conflicted with interview statements)