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. Thanks for this article. We live in Evansville, IN and are aware of how bad the child abuse is here. Can you please send us the statistics for here in Vanderburgh, County. Our web site is: www.ritualabusefree.org Thanks again

  2. This ruling has no application to Indiana. The tail end of the article is misleading where it states criminal penalties await those who refuse a test. This is false. An administrative license suspension is what awaits you. No more, no less.

  3. Yellow journalism much??? "The outcome underscores that the direction of U.S. immigration policy will be determined in large part by this fall's presidential election, a campaign in which immigration already has played an outsized role." OUTSIZED? by whose standards? Also this: "In either case, legal challenges to executive action under her administration would come to a court that would have a majority of Democratic-appointed justices and, in all likelihood, give efforts to help immigrants a friendlier reception." Ah, also, did you forget an adjective at the *** marks ahead by any chance? Thinking of one that rhymes with bald eagle? " In either case, legal challenges to executive action under her administration would come to a court that would have a majority of Democratic-appointed justices and, in all likelihood, give efforts to help *** immigrants a friendlier reception."

  4. Definition of furnish. : to provide (a room or building) with furniture. : to supply or give (something) to someone or something. : to supply or give to (someone) something that is needed or wanted. Judge Kincaid: if furnish means provide, and the constitution says the provider in a uni is the township, how on earth are they seperated??

  5. I never filed a law suite. I had no money for a lawyer. In 2010 I presented for MRI/with contrast. The technician stuck my left arm three times with needle to inject dye. I was w/out O2 for two minutes, not breathing, no ambulance was called. I suffered an Embolism ,Myocardia infarction. Permanent memory loss, heart damage. After the event, I could not remember what I did five seconds earlier. I had no-one to help me. I lost my dental hygiene career, been homeless, etc.

ADVERTISEMENT