United States v. Pillado, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18601

Five defendants were charged with conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute, stemming from a controlled delivery of 943 kilograms of marijuana from Mexico.
The shipment was malformed with a fake River Road address; agents arranged a controlled delivery to a McHenry, Illinois industrial park and paid the owner for cooperation.
Gonzalez and Pillado arrived to assist; Lara, Morales, and Hernandez later became involved in unloading the truck; Pillado’s van was registered to Alfonso Huerta.
Gonzalez, Pillado, and Lara were convicted on both counts; Lara was acquitted of the conspiracy count but convicted of possession with intent to distribute; Pillado was convicted and Gonzalez convicted with a leadership enhancement later challenged.
Lara and Gonzalez appeal various trial errors, while Pillado challenges suppression, sentencing enhancements, and denial of safety valve relief; the court reverses Lara on two grounds, affirms Gonzalez on counts, and affirms Pillado.
On remand, Lara is entitled to a new trial on entrapment grounds, and Gonzalez’s sentence is remanded for reconsideration; Pillado’s conviction and sentence are otherwise upheld.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lesser included offense instruction to Lara	Lara argues simple possession should be instructed.	Government argues only distribution plausible given quantity.	Remand for new trial; error in omitting simple possession is prejudicial.
Entrapment instruction for Lara	Lara entitled to entrapment instruction based on inducement and predisposition.	Government contends no extraordinary inducement and no predisposition.	Remand for new trial on entrapment; predisposition and inducement must be reevaluated.
Entrapment instruction for Gonzalez	Gonzalez seeks entrapment instruction.	Gonzalez is predisposed and not entitled to entrapment.	No entrapment instruction; remand for Gonzalez sentencing reconsideration due to Lara entrapment ruling.
Pillado Miranda suppression	Post-arrest statements were improperly obtained without Miranda warning.	Statements were voluntary and properly admitted.	Suppression denied; statements properly admitted; convictions sustained.
Pillado sentencing: obstruction, role, safety valve, and reasonableness	Challenge obstruction enhancement, role reduction, safety valve relief, and overall sentence reasonableness.	Arguments regarding guidelines adjustments and variance.	Obstruction enhancement proper; safety valve denied; no reversal of Pillado sentence; remand discussed for potential adjustment.

United States v. McCullough, 348 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2003) (lesser-included offense analysis; two-step test)
Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (Supreme Court, 1989) (lesser-included offenses and nexus to conspiracy)
Chrismon, 965 F.2d 1465 (7th Cir. 1992) (abandoned drug quantity can negate distribution inference)
Hernandez, 330 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 2003) (evidence of distribution conspiracy; lack of personal-use inference)
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (Supreme Court, 1992) (entrapment two-element framework; predisposition required)
Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1988) (entrapment predisposition standard; government inducement)
Evans, 924 F.2d 714 (7th Cir. 1991) (predisposition central to entrapment analysis)
Hall, 608 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 2010) (predisposition as central factor in entrapment)
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (Supreme Court, 1932) (origin of entrapment doctrine; distinguishment from trap for unwary)
Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (Supreme Court, 1958) (entrapment policy and government inducement)
Orr, 622 F.3d 864 (7th Cir. 2010) (use of extraordinary inducement with predisposed defendants)
De Leon, 603 F.3d 397 (7th Cir. 2010) (entrapment and leadership role considerations)
Freitag, 230 F.3d 1019 (7th Cir. 2000) (obstruction enhancements; perjury basis)