ILNews

7th Circuit orders lower court to consider a minor participant reduction

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a man’s lengthy sentence for transporting drug money because the District Court needs to determine whether the man should receive a minor participant reduction since he only transported money one time.

A jury convicted Cruz Saenz, a long-haul truck driver, of conspiring to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine. Saenz was recruited by a cocaine drug ring to transport money owed for drugs that had been fronted. Saenz knew he was picking up the drug money for transport, but didn’t know how much was in the duffle bag. It was the only time he participated with the cocaine distribution network. He was arrested soon after.

The District Court sentenced him to 293 months in prison. He was required to have a minimum 240 months in prison because of a previous felony drug offense, and the court found he was involved in the conspiracy beyond the single incident and denied his request for a minor participant reduction.

But there was no evidence in the record Saenz had any other involvement beyond the one-time transport of the money, the Circuit Court judges found in United States of America v. Cruz Saenz, No. 09-3647. The lower court said he was a “major participant” in the conspiracy, and that he was more than just a courier, but those findings were without supporting evidence.

The minor participant determination is heavily fact-dependent and the question is whether Saenz is less blameworthy than the average defendants in this conspiracy. The judges noted that his sentence is “all the more staggering” when compared to those received by the other co-conspirators. Of those who had been sentence at the time of oral arguments, only one other person received a longer sentence. Others who had transported cocaine and money between Texas and Indiana received sentences of 70 and 78 months. The man who coordinated the operation from Indianapolis received 144 months, although he had cooperated and testified at Saenz’s trial, wrote Judge Ann Claire Williams.

Saenz is also the only defendant who didn’t receive a reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. Section 5K1.1, in which a defendant has provided “substantial assistance” to an investigation. Granted, a courier who transports drug money once may not be able to offer substantial assistance, but the Circuit judges didn’t know whether the reduction was offered to him before he made the decision to go to trial.

They remanded for the District Court to determine if Saenz should receive a minor participant reduction, which would reduce his offense level by 2. The judges also rejected his speedy trial challenge as the majority of the delays can be attributed to Saenz or his co-conspirators. They also affirmed the obstruction of justice enhancement because the record supports the finding that he willfully lied when he said he didn’t know he was transporting drug money.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT