UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Timothy PIERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Docket: 95-30185
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; November 3, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
John Timothy Pierson appealed his conviction for conspiring to distribute cocaine and for using a communication facility in drug trafficking, asserting two main arguments. First, he claimed the district court improperly admitted testimony from a co-conspirator regarding threats made against the co-conspirator's family post-arrest. Second, he argued that the court mistakenly believed it lacked authority to grant a downward departure in sentencing for aberrant behavior. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision.
The case details revealed that from April to December 1993, Pierson was involved in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine for the Colombian Cali Cartel. He managed a trucking company, Multi-Freight Services Trucking, which transported significant cocaine shipments from California to the East Coast. Pierson initiated discussions for expanding his trucking operations, seeking financing from Frank Plunk, a known drug dealer. Plunk connected him with Richard Janis, a cocaine distributor for the Cartel, who proposed financing Pierson's trucking operations, specifically to transport cocaine disguised as produce. Pierson misrepresented the nature of the business to his partner, Gunnar Rooth, suggesting legitimate financing instead. Ultimately, Pierson sought $300,000 to launch the project, which Janis accepted shortly after.
On May 8, 1993, Pierson received $56,000 in cash from Janis via Plunk and subsequently traveled to multiple cities to establish a trucking operation, including hiring drivers and obtaining permits. While in New York, he received an additional $76,000 in cash delivered by Janis's employee. Pierson transported all funds to the MFS office. Carlos Serrato, affiliated with a cocaine trafficking organization, met with Pierson in July 1993, where Pierson facilitated the use of a warehouse for drug operations. He provided Serrato with a vacuum-sealing machine for cocaine packaging and instructed him on how to manage the warehouse operation to avoid detection.
In late summer 1993, Pierson organized a trial run transporting produce and later orchestrated the first delivery of cocaine from Los Angeles to Seattle, which included six boxes of cocaine. Over the following months, MFS trucks made multiple trips transporting significant quantities of cocaine, with Pierson overseeing operations. Law enforcement arrested Pierson, Serrato, and Plunk as plans were made to expand the operation. During Pierson's trial, Serrato testified about threats his family received post-arrest, which Pierson argued was inadmissible and prejudicial, asserting there was no evidence linking the threats to him or his associates. This testimony contributed to Pierson's conviction, leading to his appeal.
Serrato's testimony does not support the conclusion that Pierson sponsored threats against him; rather, it suggests other cartel members threatened Serrato’s family to prevent him from disclosing cartel activities after his arrest. The record lacks any evidence connecting Pierson to these threats, and the government did not establish any link. Serrato’s testimony regarding the threats was relevant to assess his credibility and explain his motive for cooperation with the government, specifically that the only incentive offered was protection for his family from drug operatives in Colombia. This aligns with precedent, indicating such threats can justify a witness's cooperation.
Pierson's cited cases are not applicable. In Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, the court addressed the prejudicial impact of threats made by the defendant against witnesses, whereas there is no evidence that Pierson threatened anyone. Similarly, in United States v. Harrison-Philpot, the court found that prior bad acts evidence violated rule 404(b), but this case lacks any prior bad acts attributed to Pierson. Consequently, the district court did not err in admitting Serrato's testimony about the threats.
Regarding Pierson’s request for a downward departure for aberrant behavior, the district court explicitly stated it lacked the authority to grant such a motion, noting Pierson's extensive involvement in a cocaine distribution conspiracy. The court's official documentation confirmed this stance, asserting that the circumstances did not warrant a departure from the sentencing guidelines. The decision reflects the court's belief that Pierson's conduct fell within the typical range of similar cases, and it will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Eligibility for a downward departure in sentencing due to "aberrant behavior" is recognized when a defendant's actions are influenced by mitigating factors not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission. This concept does not strictly require that the act be a spontaneous or thoughtless one; rather, it may involve some planning. Courts have emphasized the importance of a defendant's motivations and surrounding circumstances. For instance, in United States v. Takai, defendants were granted a departure for a brief bribery attempt motivated by altruism rather than profit. Similarly, in United States v. Lam, possession of a shotgun was deemed aberrant due to familial safety concerns following a robbery.
However, a defendant's prior law-abiding life does not automatically qualify them for a downward departure, as seen in Green, where absence of criminal history was deemed insufficient to classify behavior as aberrant. In Pierson's case, his extensive involvement in a cocaine distribution conspiracy, characterized by significant planning and hundreds of acts over eight months, indicated a level of regularity inconsistent with aberrant behavior. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure.
The subsequent testimony indicated that the witness did not have a deal with the government for their testimony and was motivated by a desire to clarify their involvement in cocaine transport. The witness also expressed concern for their family's safety, having received threats since their arrest.
