Juan Carlos Hernandez, a methamphetamine dealer, was captured on surveillance video while picking up a significant amount of money related to his drug activities. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute over 500 grams of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 360 months in prison. This sentence included a two-point enhancement for his leadership role in the drug operation, while a request for a three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility was denied. The district court, led by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb, rejected Hernandez's objections to these sentencing factors.
The case originated with Raymond Orr, a methamphetamine dealer in Superior, Wisconsin, who transitioned from a previous supplier to Hernandez and his associate, Milton Gonzales. Due to language barriers, Gonzales acted as an interpreter. Hernandez and Gonzales had an ongoing arrangement with Orr, delivering approximately one pound of methamphetamine weekly, occasionally increasing the amount.
Following Orr's arrest in November 2000, he cooperated with law enforcement, allowing them to install surveillance equipment in his garage to monitor his next meeting with Hernandez and Gonzales. During this meeting, which occurred shortly after Orr’s arrest, Hernandez and Gonzales arrived to collect around $10,000. Their interaction was largely recorded, showing minimal communication from Hernandez as Gonzales handled the conversation. Upon attempting to leave with the money, Hernandez was apprehended by police, who intervened as he tried to dispose of the cash. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding no errors in the sentencing or objections raised by Hernandez.
On March 31, 2001, Hernandez pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge related to methamphetamine trafficking. Despite expressing doubts about his guilt, the district court determined that his plea was made knowingly and voluntarily, satisfied with the government's ability to prove the plea's factual basis. Hernandez did not contest the validity of his guilty plea. His plea confirmed his involvement in a conspiracy to distribute over 500 grams of methamphetamine. Following the plea, a Presentencing Report (PSR) was prepared. Hernandez partially cooperated but submitted a written statement claiming ignorance of the drug type and stating he was paid less than $1,000 to accompany Gonzales. The probation officer found discrepancies between Hernandez's claims and testimonies from co-conspirators Orr and Gonzales, as well as evidence from a videotape. At sentencing, the court considered these testimonies, concluding that Hernandez was the leader of the operation, which influenced the denial of a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility and resulted in a two-level enhancement due to his supervisory role. The court also classified him as a career offender, leading to an offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of VI, resulting in a sentencing range of 360 months to life. Ultimately, Hernandez was sentenced to 360 months with an additional five years of supervised release. Hernandez contends that the district court's decisions regarding his career offender status, the supervisory role enhancement, and denial of the downward adjustment were erroneous, with the latter two reviewed for clear error and the career offender designation reviewed de novo. The criteria for being classified as a career offender include being at least eighteen at the time of the offense, the offense being a felony related to controlled substances, and having at least two prior felony convictions of similar nature.
Hernandez, born in 1970 and over 18 at the time of his current offense, does not contest that his conviction qualifies as a felony and a controlled substance crime. He challenges the district court’s classification of two prior felony convictions—one for possession of cocaine with intent to sell from 1989 and another for involuntary manslaughter from 1997—as crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses. Hernandez argues that the cocaine conviction should be disregarded due to its age and the small quantity involved, and he minimizes the involuntary manslaughter conviction by asserting it did not involve intent to cause harm.
The court found both prior convictions appropriately considered. The cocaine offense clearly meets the definition under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1, and while involuntary manslaughter is not always classified as a crime of violence, the reckless conduct involved in Hernandez's case, where he grabbed a bouncer's gun leading to a death, justified its classification. The court concluded that Hernandez's actions created a serious risk of physical injury or death.
Additionally, Hernandez contends that he deserved a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility due to his cooperation with law enforcement and guilty plea. However, the district court denied this adjustment based on two reasons: a prior letter from Hernandez was deemed dishonest, and he denied relevant conduct related to his role in the offense. The court found these reasons sufficient to deny the acceptance of responsibility adjustment and ruled that Hernandez’s denials indicated a lack of full acceptance of responsibility. Overall, the district court correctly classified Hernandez as a career offender and upheld its denial of the acceptance of responsibility adjustment.
Hernandez's appeal challenges the district court's decision regarding his supervisory role in a drug conspiracy, arguing that the videotape evidence is ambiguous and does not clearly identify who was in charge. While Hernandez claims Gonzales was the leader and he was merely the 'enforcer,' testimonies from Gonzales and Orr indicate that Hernandez was actually the leader, with Gonzales assisting him. The district court acknowledged potential biases in their testimonies but chose to credit them, noting that the videotape supported their accounts, including Hernandez speaking to Gonzales in Spanish and Gonzales translating for Orr. The court concluded that direct testimony was sufficient for the sentencing enhancement despite the videotape's ambiguity. The legal standard, as cited from U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c), only requires evidence that Hernandez directed another individual. Hernandez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and received a substantial sentence. The court found no errors in the sentencing determinations and affirmed the district court's judgment.
