United States v. Rebolledo-Delgadillo
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7703
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Rebolledo arranged a cocaine sale with a confidential informant (CI) and met at the CI’s ranch on August 16, 2013; the deal involved about six kilograms of cocaine.
- The supplier (Ramirez) dropped Rebolledo at the ranch, then returned with Orozco, who carried a duffle bag of cocaine into a bathroom and opened it for the CI.
- Orozco testified that Rebolledo directed him to place the drugs in a particular spot on the bathroom floor; Rebolledo never physically touched the bag.
- Recording device worn by the CI failed to capture the delivery (it recorded only one hour), but the CI and Orozco testified about the encounter; police arrested Rebolledo and Orozco minutes later and seized six kilograms of cocaine.
- A jury convicted Rebolledo of possession with intent to distribute 5+ kg of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); the district court later denied safety-valve relief and sentenced him to the 120-month statutory minimum.
- On appeal Rebolledo challenged sufficiency of the evidence, alleged false testimony and prosecutorial misstatements, and contested denial of safety-valve eligibility; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for possession conviction | Government: Rebolledo constructively possessed the cocaine by directing Orozco and controlling the transaction | Rebolledo: Evidence insufficient — he never touched the drugs; Orozco retained control; CI controlled drugs | Affirmed: testimony that Rebolledo directed placement was enough for constructive possession; aiding-and-abetting theory also sufficient |
| Alleged false testimony by DEA agent | Rebolledo: Agent lied about a three-hour recording and editing, violating due process | Government: Inconsistent testimony was unintentional and was corrected on cross-examination; defense exposed issue | Affirmed: no evidence of intentional perjury and defense had opportunity to impeach, so no due process violation |
| Prosecutorial closing argument misconduct | Rebolledo: Government misstated law by implying mere knowledge suffices for possession or that directing parking alone showed control | Government: Closing accurately argued Rebolledo directed and controlled Orozco, consistent with trial theory | Affirmed: closing statements were consistent with the theory of control; no timely objection at trial and no prejudicial misstatement |
| Denial of safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) | Rebolledo: He truthfully provided information and thus met safety-valve requirements | Government: Proffer contained implausible, inconsistent statements; defendant failed to prove completeness and truthfulness | Affirmed: district court’s credibility determinations were not clearly erroneous; safety-valve denial stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Morris, 576 F.3d 661 (7th Cir.) (constructive possession concept explained)
- United States v. Campbell, 534 F.3d 599 (7th Cir.) (proof required for constructive possession: power and intent to control)
- United States v. Kitchen, 57 F.3d 516 (7th Cir.) (authority/ability to exercise control as possession element)
- United States v. Ortega, 44 F.3d 505 (7th Cir.) (aiding-and-abetting possession affirmed where defendant pointed out drugs and facilitated sale)
- United States v. Salazar, 983 F.2d 778 (7th Cir.) (permissible to convict defendant as aider and abettor though charged as principal)
- United States v. Saadeh, 61 F.3d 510 (7th Cir.) (elements to prove due process violation from perjured testimony)
- United States v. Ramirez, 94 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir.) (standard of review and burden for safety-valve eligibility)
- United States v. Manzella, 791 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir.) (possession can be shown by ultimate control or right to possess)