United States v. Jose Gonzalez-Estrada

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4259
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE DE JESUS GONZALEZ-ESTRADA, a/k/a Chewy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00003-RJC-8)
Submitted: November 15, 2013 Decided: December 6, 2013
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Denzil H. Forrester, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina; Mythili Raman, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Denis J. McInerney, Acting Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Ross B. Goldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose De Jesus Gonzalez-Estrada (“Estrada”) pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to
distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012) (Count One); conspiracy to
distribute and to possess with intent to distribute at least 100
kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846 (2012) (Count Two); and conspiracy to
commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)
(2012) (Count Three). He received a sentence of ninety-four
months’ imprisonment. Estrada appeals his sentence, contending
that the district court erred in attributing more than nine
kilograms of cocaine to him. Although we affirm Estrada’s
sentence, we remand for the purpose of correcting a clerical
error in the judgment. 1 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
Estrada and twelve codefendants were engaged in a drug
conspiracy that maintained a “stash house” in Charlotte, North
Carolina. On January 16, 2011, law enforcement officers
observed Estrada exiting the stash house with a child’s car
seat, which a search later revealed to contain one kilogram of
1
The judgment erroneously states that Count One was
dismissed on the Government’s motion. However, the record
reveals that the Government did not move to dismiss any of the
counts, and no counts were dismissed.
2
cocaine. Searches of the stash house and two other vehicles
leaving the stash house revealed an additional seven kilograms
of cocaine. One of Estrada’s codefendants informed law
enforcement that Estrada was a “runner” for the organization and
that, in December 2010, Estrada had delivered to him a total of
one and three-quarters kilograms of cocaine.
At sentencing, Estrada objected to the probation
officer’s recommendation that Estrada be held responsible for
the cocaine recovered from the stash house and other vehicles.
The district court overruled the objection, finding that Estrada
“was aware of the bulk quantity coming in” to the stash house
and that “it was reasonably foreseeable to him that others were
moving similar weights [to Estrada’s one kilogram].” (J.A. 85-
86). 2
Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant convicted
of conspiring to distribute controlled substances “is
accountable for all quantities of contraband with which he was
directly involved and, in the case of a jointly undertaken
criminal activity, all reasonably foreseeable quantities of
contraband that were within the scope of the criminal activity
that he jointly undertook.” U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 1B1.3 cmt. n.2 (2011). The government must prove the drug
2
“J.A” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties.
3
quantity attributable to the defendant by a preponderance of the
evidence. United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d 415, 425 (4th Cir.
2002). The district court may rely on information in the
presentence report unless the defendant affirmatively shows that
the information is inaccurate or unreliable. Id. A district
court’s findings on drug quantity are generally factual in
nature, and therefore we review them for clear error. Id.
We conclude that the district court did not err in
finding that, in addition to the two and three-quarters
kilograms of cocaine directly attributable to Estrada, the seven
kilograms from the stash house were reasonably foreseeable to
Estrada based on his position as a drug runner for the
organization. See United States v. Santos-Rivera, 726 F.3d 17,
29-30 (1st Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s judgment. Because the judgment does not accurately
recite the disposition of this case, we remand to the district
court with instructions for the court to correct the clerical
error found on the first page of the judgment. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 36. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
4