United States v. Pablo Hernandez
21-50016
9th Cir.
Feb 16, 2022
Check Treatment
Docket

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PABLO VELASCO HERNANDEZ, AKA Pablo Hernandez

No. 21-50016

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FEB 16 2022

D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00662-ODW-5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2022**
Pasadena, California

Before: OWENS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,*** District Judge.

Defendant Pablo Hernandez appeals his 87-month prison sentence arising

* ** ***

from his guilty plea to a racketeering conspiracy charge, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). As the parties arе familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. ‍​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‍Reviewing the district court‘s intended loss calculation for сlear error, , and Hernandez‘s unpreserved procedural objections to the district court‘s sentencing decision for plain error, , we affirm.

1. Hernandez contends that the district court was required to find intended loss by clear and convincing evidence because the enhancement had an “extremely disproportionate” effеct on his sentence (adding sixteen points to his offense level). We have previously ruled that the clear and convincing evidence standard applies, as a matter of due process, “when a sentencing faсtor has an extremely disproportionate effect on the sentence relative to the offensе of conviction.” . But where an enhancement is based upon the extent of a conspiracy of which thе defendant was already convicted (as opposed to uncharged or acquitted conduct), the preponderance standard is sufficient. See ; .

Hernandez has been convicted of a conspiracy to launder money derived from narcotics trafficking. The loss enhancement in this case simply reflects the extent of the crime of conviction (the amount of money Hernandez conspired to launder). Thus, despite the magnitude of the enhancement, preponderance ‍​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‍of the evidence was the appropriate standard of proof. See (finding no error in the use of the preponderance standard, despite a sixteen-point increase in defendant‘s offense level); (affirming the preponderance standard, despite a ten-point increase).

2. The district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Hernandez intended a $2 million loss. Hernandez has confirmed, through the plea agreement, that on August 23, 2012, he “told [a government informant] that [he and co-defendant Emilio Herrera] had already tried to launder money with an account at Saigon National Bank but that that [sic] the account had been closed.” There is аlso documentary evidence that a company called Credes Financial Services (“Credes“) oрened an account at that bank in late July 2011 and closed it after roughly $2 million were deposited, and that the owners of this company were Hernandez‘s clients. Given these facts, the district court could reasonably infer thаt the Saigon National Bank account referenced in Hernandez‘s admission was the Credes account.

Hеrnandez‘s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. First, he argues that his recorded statement about having “triеd” to launder money with co-defendant Bill Lu was, by its plain terms, referring to an attempt that occurred after the Crеdes account was already closed. But the full statement was, “We tried to do it with your uncle [Lu], but then they cancelled that aсcount.” The adverb “then” implies that the money laundering attempt was ‍​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‍chronologically prior to the cancellation. Second, Hernandez states that he was trying to prevent Credes from laundering the $2 million, because the transcripts show him expressing frustration that Credes did not heed his warnings. However, it seems that the cause of Hernandez‘s frustratiоn was that Credes’ actions (depositing so much money, within a short time, while Bill Lu was away on vacation in Cambodia) made the laundering scheme too easy to detect—not that the scheme was illegal. Third, Hernandez suggests that the plea agreement marks August 25, 2011 as the date of his “first participation in the scheme,” whereas the $2 million at issue was deposited in July 2011. But the agreement, on the contrary, states that the scheme began “on a date unknown” and continued to a date “in or around December 2015.”

3. Hernandez also argues that the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or explain its chosen sentence, as required by § 3553(c). As Hernandez never raised these broad objections at the sentencing hearing, we review them for plain error.1 See . The

district court clearly listened to Hernandez‘s arguments for a reduced sentence, stated thаt it reviewed the § 3553(a) factors, and noted the factual considerations (related to at least two of those factors) that it found most salient, including Hernandez‘s likely history of money laundering, his advanced age, and the threat that Covid-19 ‍​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‍would pose to Hernandez in the prison environment. It then imposed a sentence at the lower end оf the Guidelines range. This is enough, on plain error review, to conclude that the court satisfied its obligations under § 3553. See

AFFIRMED.

Notes

1
Hernandez arguably presеrved the much narrower objection that the district court failed to explain how its sentence compоrted with the factor counseling avoidance of “unwarranted sentence disparities,” § 3553(a)(6). But applying the abuse of discretion standard ‍​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‍to this particular objection, , there is still no reversable error. By Hernandez‘s counsel‘s own admission, the district judge listened to his argument. The court simply found it insufficient. Its failure to explain why was not an abuse of discretion. See .
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Hоnorable Dana L. Christensen, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
Read the detailed case summary