United States v. Violeta Hinojosa
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17840
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hinojosa was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and distribution of methamphetamine.
- An extensive meth distribution investigation identified Hinojosa as delivering meth to a dealer under investigation; Elizabeth White assisted law enforcement.
- On April 17, 2009, White participated in a controlled buy at Castaneda's home, during which a woman identified as Hinojosa entered and exited Castaneda's residence within minutes.
- Hinojosa was arrested and charged with the two counts; the jury convicted on both counts.
- Before sentencing, Hinojosa provided an interview denying involvement; she sought safety valve relief, which the district court denied.
- She appeals the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court's denial of safety valve relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Hinojosa asserts misidentification and unreliable testimony undermine the verdict. | The government’s cooperating witnesses and Castaneda's testimony establish delivery over time. | Evidence sufficient for guilt. |
| Safety valve eligibility | Sought safety valve relief despite denial of involvement; argues all five requirements were met. | District court correctly found failure to satisfy the fifth element due to lack of truthful disclosure and the proffer. | District court did not clearly err in denying safety valve relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Phythian, 529 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2008) (sufficiency review de novo; reasonable jurors could find guilt)
- United States v. Pruneda, 518 F.3d 597 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Flores, 474 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir. 2007) (court defers to jury credibility determinations)
- United States v. Razo-Guerra, 534 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2008) (safety valve elements and burden of proof at sentencing)
- United States v. Garcia, 675 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2012) (safety valve fifth element requires truthful information by sentencing)
- United States v. Polk, 715 F.3d 238 (8th Cir. 2013) (review of safety valve completeness and truthfulness findings)
- United States v. Sherpa, 110 F.3d 656 (9th Cir. 1997) (guilty verdict does not foreclose safety valve eligibility as a matter of law)