United States v. Vallar
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2839
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Indictment: 51-count federal drug conspiracy against 17 individuals including Hernandez, Pedroza, Vallar, Curry; charged Iniguez as the organizer.
- Iniguez directed a drug operation distributing cocaine and heroin in multiple U.S. cities; Vallar and Hernandez were among distributors.
- Vallar and Hernandez were arrested May 26, 2005, and each waived Miranda rights; both confessed.
- Curry pled guilty September 6, 2006; Pedroza, Hernandez, and Vallar convicted on multiple counts on April 13, 2007.
- District court sentenced Vallar to 151 months (Counts 1 & 35) and 48 months (Count 37) concurrent; Hernandez to multi‑term terms; Pedroza to 360 months; all sentences appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pedroza’s sentence within guidelines or improperly reasoned under 3553(a) | Pedroza argues improper consideration of §3553(a) factors | District court failed to adequately weigh mitigating factors and rely too heavily on guidelines | District court meaningfully considered §3553(a) and did not abuse discretion |
| Hernandez’s enhancement under §3B1.1(b) for supervisory role | Hernandez supervised others and thus qualifies for enhancement | He played a passive role; no supervisory authority | Court did not err in applying the 3-level enhancement |
| Hernandez’s post-arrest suppression motion | Confession voluntary despite circumstances | Confession obtained involuntarily due to coercion | District court’s denial of suppression affirmed; coercion not shown |
| Vallar’s post-arrest confession suppression challenge | Waiver voluntary, knowingly, intelligently given; Miranda rights understood | Tape playback before warning could invoke Innis/Seibert concerns | Waiver voluntary/knowingly intelligent; Seibert issue not violated; suppression denied |
| Vallar’s conspiracy sufficiency evidence vs buyer-seller relationship | Evidence showed agreement to distribute drugs beyond mere buyer-seller | Relationship with Iniguez was primarily buyer-seller | Sufficient evidence of conspiracy; judgment affirmed against Vallar |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonable sentence if within guidelines; requires §3553(a) balancing)
- Coopman v. United States, 602 F.3d 814 (2010) (abuse-of-discretion review of §3553(a) consideration)
- Omole v. United States, 523 F.3d 691 (2008) (advisory nature of guidelines; not mandatory)
- Paige v. United States, 611 F.3d 397 (2010) (district court need not address every §3553(a) factor explicitly)
- Tahzib v. United States, 513 F.3d 692 (2008) (within-guidelines sentence often reasonable; defer to sentencing judge)
- Wurzinger v. United States, 467 F.3d 649 (2006) (death-in-prison considerations may be weighed against other factors)
- Kincannon v. United States, 567 F.3d 893 (2009) (upholds consideration of §3553(a) factors in substantiality of sentence)
- Seibert v. Missouri, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (interrogation protocol before/after warnings; admissibility of post-warning statements)