ILNews

7th Circuit again reverses drug sentence for minor role reduction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man convicted of a federal charge that he transported drug money will be sentenced a third time after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in a nonprecedential opinion that a resentencing the court ordered in 2010 did not sufficiently consider his minor role compared with conspirators.

Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana sentenced Cruz Saenz to 252 months in prison on remand from the 7th Circuit, which in 2010 vacated his sentence of 293 months and remanded  because there was no evidence to support denial of a minor role reduction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Section 3B1.2

The panel ruled in U.S. v. Cruz Saenz, 07-CR-125,  that Saenz was entitled to another resentencing. “The district court did not compare Saenz’s culpability to that of the average member of the conspiracy, which was error,” the court ruled.

“Because of the error, and because it is not clear that Saenz would have received the same 252-month sentence had the minor role reduction been applied, we vacate his sentence and remand.”

Saenz was involved with other co-defendants in a cocaine smuggling network based in Mexico, whose Texas operators arranged to ship the drugs to Indianapolis. Saenz was arrested after he transported $500,000 in drug money to Texas, and a jury convicted him of conspiring to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine.

In his second sentence appeal, the 7th Circuit emphasized that there was no evidence Saenz touched drugs or participated in deals, and that it was incumbent on the District Court in sentencing to measure his culpability against others who, with one exception, received far lesser sentences. Saenz, however, is required to have a minimum sentence of 240 months in prison due to a prior felony drug offense.

“However the district court wishes to determine whether the minor role reduction applies, it must make some explicit or implicit finding concerning the culpability of the average member of the conspiracy,” the court ruled. “Next the district court should determine what might represent the culpability of the average member of the conspiracy and then compare it to Saenz’s culpability.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT