United States v. Pablo Lopez
704 F. App'x 588
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pablo Lopez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute >5 kg of cocaine and faced a statutory minimum 10-year sentence.
- Probation calculated an offense level 33 including a 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for being an organizer/leader of a conspiracy of five or more participants; without the enhancement his guideline range would be at or below the statutory minimum.
- Evidence: Lopez negotiated quantities, set times/locations, fronted cocaine on credit, confronted buyers about short payments, and coordinated deliveries often via his brother Bacilio Lopez-Rios; Anguiano initially brokered deals but later was cut out.
- Wiretap summaries and codefendants’ plea agreements indicated other participants deferred to Lopez and that he arranged deals and directed his brother.
- District court applied the 4-level § 3B1.1(a) adjustment, found Lopez organized or led the conspiracy, and sentenced him to 126 months (below the guideline range but above the statutory minimum).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez qualified as an "organizer or leader" under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) | Government: Lopez made business decisions, directed others, arranged deals, and assumed managerial tasks — supporting the enhancement | Lopez: He was a seller/distributor, not a controller; he shared duties with his brother and others; buyer–seller negotiations don’t equal leadership; record lacks recruitment or larger profit share | The court affirmed the § 3B1.1(a) adjustment; the record supports conclusions that Lopez organized others and directed operations |
| Whether factual discrepancies in the record (e.g., brothers treated as a unit; use of other couriers) undermine the enhancement | Government: Discrepancies are immaterial given abundant other evidence of Lopez’s leadership | Lopez: These discrepancies show the court drew incorrect inferences and overstated his control | Court held discrepancies harmless; other uncontested evidence and plea agreements support the enhancement |
| Whether any error in applying § 3B1.1(a) would require reversal of sentence | Government: Even if error, district court stated it would have imposed the same sentence | Lopez: If enhancement removed, sentencing range and placement could change | Harmless-error: district judge said same sentence would be imposed absent enhancement, so sentence affirmed |
| Standard of review for factual inferences supporting role enhancement | Government: Deferential clear-error standard; if two inferences possible, affirm | Lopez: District court drew wrong inference from evidence | Court applied clear-error rule and found no clear error in choosing the inference that Lopez was an organizer/leader |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sullivan, 765 F.3d 712 (7th Cir.) (defendant may qualify for § 3B1.1(a) if responsible for organizing others to carry out the crime)
- United States v. Dade, 787 F.3d 1165 (7th Cir.) (§ 3B1.1 does not require formal control over participants)
- United States v. Fox, 548 F.3d 523 (7th Cir.) (using others to carry out drug deals can support an organizer/leader adjustment)
- United States v. May, 748 F.3d 758 (7th Cir.) (if two reasonable inferences exist, choice between them is not clearly erroneous)
- United States v. Leahy, 464 F.3d 773 (7th Cir.) (standard for reviewing factual findings at sentencing)
- United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310 (7th Cir.) (§ 3B1.1 application may be affirmed on any record-supported ground)
- United States v. Austin, 806 F.3d 425 (7th Cir.) (codefendants’ plea agreements are reliable sentencing information)
- United States v. Grigsby, 692 F.3d 778 (7th Cir.) (same on use of plea agreements at sentencing)
- United States v. Minhas, 850 F.3d 873 (7th Cir.) (harmless-error where district court states it would impose same sentence absent contested enhancement)
- United States v. Ruelas-Valdovinos, 747 F.3d 941 (7th Cir.) (affirming sentence when district court would have imposed same sentence without § 3B1.1)