United States v. Salinas
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15930
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Vargas and Salinas were indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and related counts under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and 843(b).
- Vargas pleaded guilty to Count One and received 121 months; Salinas went to trial and was convicted on Counts One, Four, and Five, receiving 120 months.
- DEA wiretapped 19 phones (summer 2011) to investigate Villa (a Chicago drug dealer) and Vargas (Villa’s supplier).
- Vargas acted as a middleman, fronting marijuana to Villa and directing money packaging to fit Salinas’ refrigerated trailer compartments.
- Salinas was stopped in New Buffalo, Michigan; authorities found $311,000 concealed in lead-lined compartments in Salinas’ trailer, leading to his conviction on conspiracy and money-laundering-related counts.
- Vargas challenged a three-level manager/supervisor enhancement under § 3B1.1; Salinas challenged sufficiency of evidence and the ostrich jury-instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vargas qualified for the manager/supervisor enhancement | Vargas argues he was a messenger/middleman, not a manager | Vargas claims no decision-making or control over others | Enhancement affirmed; Vargas exercised control and directed others |
| Whether the evidence supports Salinas’ knowledge of drug-related proceeds | Salinas knew or deliberately avoided learning 돈来源 | Evidence insufficient to prove knowledge or deliberate avoidance | Sufficient evidence; conviction affirmed |
| Whether the ostrich instruction was improperly given plain error | Salinas challenges the instruction as prejudicial | Instruction correctly described knowledge and deliberate avoidance | Not plain error; instruction language consistent with law |
| Whether the ostrich instruction’s wording violated law | Global-Tech should narrow willful blindness | Evidence supports knowledge or deliberate avoidance; any error harmless | No error; any potential error harmless due to sufficient evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grigsby, 692 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2012) (defines manager/supervisor in § 3B1.1 and factors guiding its application)
- United States v. Vaughn, 722 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2013) (discusses relative responsibility and control in applying § 3B1.1)
- United States v. Figueroa, 682 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2012) (supervisor meaning: tells people what to do and determines whether they've done it)
- United States v. Ortiz, 463 F. App’x 580 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirmed § 3B1.1 enhancement based on role in conspiracy)
- United States v. Hicks, 418 F. App’x 534 (7th Cir. 2011) (upholds enhancement where there was relative responsibility and control)
- United States v. Carani, 492 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2007) (discusses knowledge in conspiracy and deliberate avoidance)