United States v. Lopez-Sandoval
146 F.3d 712, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4578, 98 Daily Journal DAR 6269 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant cannot receive a sentencing enhancement as an organizer or leader under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) merely for being an essential participant in a criminal enterprise, such as a translator. The government must provide evidence that the defendant exercised some degree of control, organizational authority, or decision-making power over other participants.
Facts:
- Between August and November 1996, Carlos Lopez-Sandoval and Moisés Gonzalez were involved in four cocaine distributions to an informant.
- Gonzalez's co-conspirators did not speak English, while the undercover buyers did.
- Gonzalez acted as the interpreter between his Spanish-speaking co-conspirators and the English-speaking buyers during the transactions.
- Gonzalez relayed information regarding the time, location, and price of the drug deals.
- There was no evidence that Gonzalez independently set the price, located the drug suppliers, or recruited accomplices.
- All co-conspirators participated directly in the drug transactions and met face-to-face with the informant and detectives.
- There was no evidence Gonzalez exercised any authority over his co-conspirators or received a larger share of the profits.
Procedural Posture:
- Carlos Lopez-Sandoval and Moisés Gonzalez were indicted in federal district court for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and other drug-trafficking offenses.
- Following their convictions, a sentencing hearing was held in the district court.
- The district court applied a two-level sentencing enhancement to both defendants for possession of a firearm under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).
- The district court also applied an additional two-level enhancement to Gonzalez’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), finding he was an organizer or leader of the conspiracy.
- Both Lopez-Sandoval and Gonzalez (appellants) appealed their sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's role as an essential translator who relays information about price and location in a drug conspiracy, without more, qualify him as an 'organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor' for a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c)?
Opinions:
Majority - Pregerson, Circuit Judge
No. A defendant's role as an essential translator who relays information does not, without more, qualify him as an 'organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor' for a sentencing enhancement. The district court erred by applying an improper 'but for' test, which incorrectly equates indispensability with leadership. The correct standard requires a showing that the defendant 'exercised some control over others involved in commission of the offense [or was] responsible for organizing others for the purpose of carrying out the crime.' Simply relaying information about price and location is insufficient to establish control or decision-making authority. Unlike defendants in prior cases where this enhancement was upheld, Gonzalez was not the sole middleman, did not coordinate procurement, and exercised no authority over his co-conspirators. Without evidence of control or organizational authority, the enhancement is improper and constitutes clear error.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the evidentiary requirements for imposing a leadership role enhancement under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. It explicitly rejects an 'indispensability' or 'but for' test, reinforcing that the key inquiry is control and organization, not mere importance to the criminal scheme. The ruling protects defendants in subordinate but essential roles—such as translators, drivers, or technical experts—from being miscategorized as leaders. This precedent compels lower courts to demand concrete evidence of decision-making authority or control over co-conspirators before applying the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement, ensuring it is reserved for those who actually manage or supervise others.
