United States v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 23 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-3335 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Thomas P. Peabody, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff - Appellee.
Quinn A. Michaelis, Attorney, Quinn A. Michaelis, Attorney at Law, Chicago, IL, for Defendant - Appellant.
Before Ripple, Kanne,1 and Scudder, Circuit Judges.
After engaging in multiple sales of methamphetamine and of a weapon to a confidential informant, Ralph Garcia was charged with three counts of distributing fifty grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) ; two counts of distributing five grams or more of methamphetamine, also in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) ; and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Mr. Garcia consented to a bench trial, during which the court permitted him to introduce evidence of entrapment. The district court, as the trier of fact, ultimately concluded that Mr. Garcia was not entrapped and found him guilty on all counts.
The probation office then prepared a presentence report ("PSR") and determined Mr. Garcia's offense level to be 35, with a resulting Guidelines range of 292 to 365 months. His offense level was based in part on a 1993 conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm. The PSR also noted that Mr. Garcia was subject to a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence on the firearm count pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because he had three previous convictions for violent felonies. Mr. Garcia did not object to the calculation of his offense level (or the resultant Guidelines range), nor did he contend that the mandatory minimum sentence did not apply.
On appeal, Mr. Garcia raises three claims of error. First, he maintains that the Government did not meet its burden of showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was not entrapped. The record, however, contains ample evidence that Mr. Garcia was not induced to commit the weapon and drug transactions and was otherwise predisposed to engage in those transactions. Consequently, there is no basis on which to disturb the district court's conclusion that Mr. Garcia was not entrapped.
Second, Mr. Garcia maintains that the district court committed plain error in subjecting him to a mandatory minimum sentence because the PSR did not identify the Illinois statute attendant to Mr. Garcia's conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm. There is no merit to this contention. The PSR, supported by documentation, identifies Mr. Garcia's crime of conviction as aggravated battery with a firearm under Illinois law, which is a crime a violence.
Third, Mr. Garcia contends that the district court committed plain error in using his 1993 aggravated battery with a firearm conviction when calculating his offense level. The Government agrees, as do we. When determining Mr. Garcia's offense level for his firearm conviction, the district court should not have increased the offense level based on prior convictions for which no criminal history points were awarded. Because Mr. Garcia's offense level rests in part on that conviction, and because this offense level increased Mr. Garcia's Guidelines range, we vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing based on a corrected offense-level calculation.
In 2014, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms ("ATF") began investigating the Joliet, Illinois faction of the Latin Kings, of which Mr. Garcia was a leading member. In November of that year, a confidential informant ("CI") told one of the investigating agents, Special Agent Andrew Karceski, that Mr. Garcia was selling drugs. The CI, also a member of the Latin Kings, had been acquainted with Mr. Garcia since 2012. The ATF arranged for the CI to make contact with, and purchase drugs and a firearm from, Mr. Garcia. Indeed, from November 2014 to March 2015, Mr. Garcia sold methamphetamine to the CI on five occasions, and on one of those occasions also sold the CI a firearm. All of the meetings between the CI and Mr. Garcia were recorded and closely monitored.
The first recorded conversation between the CI and Mr. Garcia took place on November 15, 2014. During that conversation, Mr. Garcia discussed his access to different types of drugs, including China white heroin, black tar heroin, cocaine, and crystal methamphetamine; he also displayed knowledge of the wholesale and street prices of those drugs. The CI expressed his interest in purchasing drugs for resale, and Mr. Garcia suggested selling crystal methamphetamine. The CI also inquired about Mr. Garcia's access to firearms; Mr. Garcia indicated that his brother's friend had a "whole house full of em."2 Mr. Garcia also informed the CI that he knew a member of a different gang who had "like six guns" and that Mr. Garcia had seen the guns the night before.3 At no time did Mr. Garcia inform the CI that he was no longer involved in illegal activities or that he could not (or would not) assist the CI in procuring narcotics and weapons.
The CI and Mr. Garcia met two days later so that the CI could purchase methamphetamine to sell to his fictitious buyer. During the meeting Mr. Garcia indicated that the drugs were of very high quality ("This is fire") and advised the CI that the methamphetamine should not touch his skin or he would get high.4 Mr. Garcia also told the CI that he could sell this methamphetamine for more than the typical street value of $900 per ounce because of its quality.
The CI texted Mr. Garcia again on November 24, 2014, and they agreed to meet later that day. At that time Mr. Garcia sold the CI 56.3 grams of pure methamphetamine for $1800. Mr. Garcia again warned the CI to double bag the drugs so that the CI did not "get sick."5 During the course of this meeting, Mr. Garcia also informed the CI that he knew a father and son with "all kind of guns."6 Mr. Garcia proposed going to their home, tying them up, and taking the guns. He assured the CI that "we ain't gotta kill em."7
The CI and Mr. Garcia met again on December 15, 2014. The CI purchased 55.6 grams of methamphetamine for $1800. When the CI inquired about weapons, Mr. Garcia responded that his sister's boyfriend was a possible source. Mr. Garcia followed up with the CI over the next few days regarding firearms availability.
On December 31, 2014, the CI texted Mr. Garcia for updates on the firearms. Mr. Garcia responded that he was waiting to hear from two possible suppliers. In January, Mr. Garcia got back in touch with the CI and notified him that he had located one and possibly two firearms. Two days later, on January 23, 2015, Mr. Garcia sold the CI a Taurus .38 caliber revolver with a speed loader for $400; Mr. Garcia also sold the CI another 57.4 grams of methamphetamine for $1800.
Finally, the CI contacted Mr. Garcia on March 4, 2015, and requested another ounce of methamphetamine. Later that day, Mr. Garcia sold 27.9 grams of methamphetamine to the CI for $900.
On March 24, 2016, a grand jury indicted Mr. Garcia on three counts of distributing fifty or more grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). On November 20, 2017, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment which added two counts of distributing five or more grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Prior to trial, the Government moved in limine to prevent Mr. Garcia from calling the CI as a witness. Mr. Garcia argued, however, that the CI's testimony was central to the presentation of an entrapment defense. Mr. Garcia later supplemented his response with a proffer of evidence setting forth the anticipated testimony of the CI that would support the defense. According to Mr. Garcia, the CI's testimony would establish that he and the CI were longtime family friends and that the CI had helped him obtain legitimate employment after he was released from prison in 2012. According to Mr. Garcia, the CI also would testify that he had invoked their mutual friendship as a basis to convince Mr. Garcia to engage repeatedly in illegal activities.
The district court concluded that Mr. Garcia had presented sufficient evidence of entrapment to raise the defense at trial. It explained that "an entrapment instruction is warranted if the defendant proffers ‘some evidence’ that the government induced him to commit the crime and he was not predisposed to commit it."8 The court determined that the evidence of a "close relationship," along with the CI's statements that he needed Mr. Garcia's help in obtaining drugs to sell, satisfied Mr. Garcia's " ‘low-burden’ of presenting ‘some evidence’ that the Government induced" the criminal activity.9 "Turning to predisposition," the district court noted that Mr. Garcia had "not presented substantial evidence regarding a lack of predisposition to sell drugs and firearms."10 Nevertheless, his affidavit indicated that, after he was released from prison, he had "found honest work and was trying to stay out of trouble."11 The court concluded that this evidence, and the fact that more than two decades had passed since Mr. Garcia had engaged in similar criminal conduct, arguably established a lack of predisposition. The court noted, however, that its ruling was limited to whether Mr. Garcia could present his defense at trial. The court "expresse[d] no opinion on whether Defendant ultimately w[ould] be successful with an entrapment defense."12 Rather, at trial, the court would have to examine all of the evidence, determine what inferences could be drawn from that evidence, and make any "credibility determinations necessary to reach a determination on the ultimate merits of Defendant's entrapment defense."13
By consent of the parties, a bench trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Anderson
...present an entrapment defense, our review is de novo, meaning without deference to the district court's views. United States v. Garcia, 37 F.4th 1294, 1302 (7th Cir. 2022). Our role is to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the accused, i.e., without weighing the evidence or de......
-
United States v. Anderson
...with the defendant, suggested the crime, or furnished the ordinary opportunity to commit it is insufficient to show inducement." Garcia, 37 F.4th at 1301 Mayfield, 771 F.3d at 434). Rather, as the majority notes, inducement requires normal solicitation of a crime "plus some other government......
-
United States v. Coleman
... ... fists, knowing that he was an employee of any transportation ... facility ... ” (Indictment, DE 359-1 at 1.) Likewise, ... count 1 of the indictment ... in the *601 case states that in committing battery, Mr ... Coleman “caused bodily harm to Esteban Garcia, to wit: ... struck Estaban Garcia about the body, knowing him to be an ... officer of a unit of local government.” (Count 1 of the ... Indictment, DE 359-2 at 2.) The sentencing documents show ... that he was convicted of the charges as brought. (DE 359-1 at ... 3; ... ...
-
United States v. Leal
... ... attempts at persuasion, fraudulent representations, threats, ... coercive tactics, harassment, promises of reward beyond that ... inherent in the customary execution of the crime, [and] pleas ... based on need, sympathy, or friendship." United ... States v. Garcia, 37 F.4th 1294, 1301 (7th Cir. 2022) ... (alteration in original) (citation omitted) ... According ... to Leal, the evidence establishes that Carter did more than ... solicit the crime-he fraudulently misrepresented Corey's ... age and repeatedly ... ...