Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; April 16, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Manuel Gonzalez-Rangel pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine and marijuana, as well as three counts of cocaine distribution. He was sentenced to 235 months in prison on each count, to run concurrently, followed by five years of supervised release and a $400 assessment. Rangel's appeal challenges three key aspects of his sentencing: the attribution of over 80 kilograms of cocaine to him, the enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon in relation to his drug charges, and the denial of a sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. The court affirmed the sentencing decision.
From early 1998 to December 1999, Rangel supplied illegal drugs to a Milwaukee drug ring led by Julio Lopez, which included his family members. Rangel provided cocaine and marijuana from his tavern or his car. An incident on October 9, 1999, led to police discovering Rangel in his car with a firearm and cocaine. He claimed ownership of the car and firearm but denied knowledge of the drugs. Rangel was indicted and arrested on December 15, 1999, with evidence linking him to a larger drug conspiracy. During sentencing, Rangel argued for a lower attribution of cocaine responsibility, but the government cited testimonies from co-conspirators to support its claim of his involvement with over 80 kilograms.
Ernesto Lopez reported to investigators that the Defendant supplied him with approximately 1,000 pounds of marijuana and 40-50 kilograms of cocaine during the Lopez family’s drug operations. He indicated that the Defendant also provided illegal drugs to other family members, including Junior, Jose, and Julian. Ernesto observed deliveries of cocaine and marijuana to Junior every three days throughout 1999, estimating over 40-50 kilograms were sold to him. His identification of the Defendant as a key supplier was supported by nearly a dozen co-conspirators, including Hector Lopez, who noted regular supplies of cocaine to Junior and Ernesto; Estevan Alvarado, who confirmed various family members obtained drugs from the Defendant; Mark Bowie, who recounted drug transactions following a dispute with another supplier; and Mario Reyes, who identified the Defendant as a drug source and mentioned accompanying family members to the Defendant’s tavern for purchases in 1999.
The pre-sentence report documented several controlled purchases of drugs involving the Defendant, conducted by undercover agents and informants, on dates throughout 1999, with quantities ranging from ounces to pounds of cocaine and marijuana. These transactions typically occurred at or near Rangel’s tavern. One transaction was recorded, capturing the Defendant boasting about supplying cocaine to Junior and other family members. The sentencing court attributed over 80 kilograms of cocaine to Rangel based on the evidence and noted his possession of a handgun on October 9, 1999, which warranted a weapon enhancement for his drug offense. The court also dismissed Rangel’s objection to this enhancement as frivolous, denying a downward departure for acceptance of responsibility.
The sentencing court found Rangel responsible for over 2,000 pounds of marijuana and over 80 kilograms of cocaine, relying on statements from co-conspirators, which it deemed credible. Rangel contends that the court improperly based its drug quantity calculations solely on these statements, particularly criticizing the reliance on Ernesto Lopez, a cooperating co-defendant. He argues the court failed to establish the reliability of this information, referencing United States v. Palmer, where the court reversed a drug quantity assessment due to insufficient credibility findings. However, the analysis distinguishes this case from Palmer by noting that the sentencing court made explicit credibility findings regarding the co-conspirators’ testimonies about Rangel's drug activities. The court found the co-conspirators’ statements credible due to their consistency and corroboration from nearly a dozen individuals, supporting the claim that Rangel was a major supplier for the Lopez family. The court clarified that evidence of relevant conduct does not need to be presented as live testimony and that the government’s burden is to establish drug quantities by a preponderance of the evidence. Rangel's challenges to the credibility of the co-conspirators were deemed insufficient to counter the evidence against him.
Eleven co-conspirators testified that Rangel was their regular source of cocaine and marijuana for the Lopez family, corroborated by evidence in the pre-sentence report, including controlled purchases and Rangel’s admission of being a "supplier." Ernesto Lopez’s assessment indicated Rangel was responsible for over 80 kilograms of cocaine, and since this testimony was reliable and unrefuted by the Defendant, the district court correctly attributed this amount to Rangel.
Regarding the possession of a dangerous weapon, the court determined that Rangel was eligible for a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) due to possessing a handgun in connection with drug offenses. The government initially demonstrated that Rangel possessed a nine-millimeter handgun and nine bags of cocaine when arrested. Rangel claimed his possession of the gun was for protecting his tavern and that he was unaware of the cocaine in his car. However, this explanation did not convincingly show it was "clearly improbable" that the gun was connected to drug trafficking. The location of the gun and cocaine, along with the type of gun and its concealment, supported the government's assertion of its use in illegal activities. The court concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly indicated that the weapon was used in connection with drug transactions, affirming the proper imposition of the sentencing enhancement.
A defendant may have his offense level reduced under the Sentencing Guidelines for demonstrating acceptance of responsibility. In this case, the court denied the reduction for Rangel, citing his frivolous objection to evidence linking him to a gun involved in drug transactions. Although a guilty plea can support a claim for a reduction, it does not guarantee it, especially if the defendant contests relevant conduct determined by the court to be true. Rangel's insistence that he did not use his handgun in drug-related activities was deemed frivolous, given substantial evidence, including his possession of the gun and cocaine on October 9, 1999, and his admission of using the gun for protection related to his drug operations.
The district court found Rangel's refusal to acknowledge his actions wasteful and indicative of a lack of genuine responsibility for his crimes, leading to the affirmation of the court’s decision not to apply the § 3E1.1 downward adjustment. Rangel's plea was entered without a plea agreement, and testimonies from multiple cooperating witnesses linked him to substantial drug transactions, estimating his involvement at over 80-100 kilograms of drugs. Unlike a prior case (Palmer), the evidence was based on ongoing drug activities rather than a single transaction, making it more reliable. Rangel attempted to counter the evidence with testimonials about his character and financial situation, but these did not directly contradict the drug-related evidence. Specific transactions involving the sale of cocaine and marijuana further corroborated the claims against him.
