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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT