United States v. Reynold De La Torre
940 F.3d 938
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- The Zamudio organization trafficked methamphetamine and cocaine in Indianapolis; Jose Zamudio led imports and local distribution. Several associates (Gonzalez, De La Torre, Chapman, Rush, Bennett) pleaded guilty and received lengthy sentences; appeals were consolidated.
- Maria Gonzalez laundered proceeds by arranging wire transfers and recruiting family members; she was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and money laundering and received a 300‑month sentence after a three‑level §3B1.1 aggravating‑role enhancement.
- Reynold De La Torre pleaded under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement and accepted supervised‑release conditions at sentencing; he challenges two conditions as vague/unconstitutional.
- Christian Chapman and Jeffrey Rush pleaded under binding plea agreements that relied on amended §851 informations listing prior state felony drug convictions as predicate "felony drug offense(s)," which increased mandatory minimum exposure; both contend the listed priors do not qualify under the federal definition.
- Adrian Bennett withdrew an earlier plea after the First Step Act affected his §851 exposure, pled open, received a 225‑month below‑Guidelines sentence, and appeals as substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gonzalez deserved a §3B1.1 aggravating‑role enhancement (manager/supervisor) | Gonzalez: she did not supervise qualifying "participants" (only family members who were not criminally responsible) | Gov: she recruited and directed at least three participants who knowingly assisted laundering | Affirmed: plain‑error review fails for Gonzalez; PSR and admissions show she supervised participants and three sufficed under §3B1.1(b) |
| Validity of De La Torre’s challenges to two supervised‑release conditions | De La Torre: conditions are vague/unconstitutional | Gov: defendant waived challenges by reviewing PSR, declining objections, and waiving reading at sentencing | Waived: appellate challenge forfeited under Flores standard; De La Torre intentionally waived objections |
| Whether Chapman’s and Rush’s prior state convictions qualified as §851 "felony drug offense(s)" making pleas involuntary | Chapman/Rush: the listed state statutes are categorically broader than the federal definition so the §851 allegations were invalid and pleas not knowing/voluntary | Gov: the priors qualified (or were divisible so the court could examine conviction records) | Vacated pleas and remanded: Chapman’s 1993 Illinois convictions did not qualify (statute indivisible/broader); Rush’s 2001 Indiana conviction did not qualify (Indiana statute broader than federal §802(44)) — prejudice satisfied under plain‑error review |
| Reasonableness of Bennett’s below‑Guidelines 225‑month sentence | Bennett: sentence is substantively unreasonable and creates unwarranted disparity | Gov: district court followed §3553(a), explained basis, and permissibly imposed below‑Guidelines term | Affirmed: sentence procedurally sound and substantively reasonable; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Elder, 900 F.3d 491 (7th Cir. 2018) (categorical‑approach framework for prior convictions)
- Najera‑Rodriguez v. Barr, 926 F.3d 343 (7th Cir. 2019) (Illinois §402(c) treated as indivisible for categorical analysis)
- United States v. Flores, 929 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2019) (waiver vs. forfeiture of supervised‑release condition challenges)
- United States v. Pabey, 664 F.3d 1084 (7th Cir. 2011) (who qualifies as a "participant" under §3B1.1)
- United States v. Watts, 535 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2008) (application of role enhancement when defendant recruited participants)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error review elements)
- Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (prejudice from sentencing error and impact of actual jail time)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (reasonable‑probability standard for different outcome from Guidelines error)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for review of sentencing reasonableness)