United States v. Renteria
| Decision Date | 31 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 17-0943 JB,CR 17-0943 JB |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Helen RENTERIA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
John C. Anderson, United States Attorney, Presiliano Torrez, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Barrett (Barry) George Porter, Burgess and Porter Law, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for the Defendant.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Objection to Presentence Report (Sealed), filed November 20, 2020 (Doc. 93)("Objection"). The primary issue is whether the 2-level adjustment for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G." or "Guidelines") applies to Defendant Helen Renteria's conviction for Count 2, because Renteria absconded while under pretrial supervision. The Court overrules the Objection, and the Court will impose a 2-level adjustment under § 3C1.1, because Renteria willfully obstructed and impeded the administration of justice when she absconded from pretrial supervision and was therefore unavailable for any for court procedures in this case.
The Court takes its facts from the Plea Agreement, filed September 1, 2020 (Doc. 85), and the Presentence Investigation Report, filed October 30, 2020 (Doc. 91)("PSR").
1. On March 17, 2017, Renteria and her daughter were traveling on a Greyhound bus in Bernalillo County, in the District of New Mexico. See Plea Agreement ¶ 8, at 4-5; PSR ¶¶ 12, 24, at 4, 6.
2. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, a Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") agent observed Renteria and her daughter deboard and reboard the Greyhound bus; both times Renteria's daughter was carrying "a light green colored hard-sided suitcase." PSR ¶¶ 14-15, at 5-6.
3. The DEA agent entered the Greyhound bus and asked Renteria and her daughter if he could search their belongings. See PSR ¶ 18, at 5.
4. Renteria consented to a search of her belongings, but the search did not reveal any illegal narcotics. See PSR ¶ 18, at 5.
5. The DEA agent asked to search the green suitcase, but both Renteria and her daughter "denied ownership of the light green, hard-sided suitcase, and the agent determined that both parties disclaimed all interest and ownership to the suitcase." PSR ¶ 18, at 5.
6. When the DEA agent searched the green suitcase, he found "several black electrical taped bundles concealed inside of women's clothing." PSR ¶ 18, at 5.
7. Based on his training and experience, the DEA agent knew the bundles were consistent with illegal narcotics. See PSR ¶ 18, at 5.
8. The bundles PSR ¶ 21, at 5.
9. Renteria and her daughter "were to be compensated for the delivery of the methamphetamine to its final destination in Minneapolis, Minnesota." PSR ¶ 22, at 5.
10. On March 21, 2017, Renteria was placed on conditions of release with pretrial supervision to the third-party custody of La Pasada Halfway House in Albuquerque, New Mexico. See PSR ¶ 9, at 4; Order Setting Conditions of Release, filed March 21, 2017 (Doc. 13)("Conditions for Release I").
11. On April 11, 2017, the United States filed an indictment, charging Renteria and her daughter with Count 1: Conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 ; and Count 2: Possession with Intent to Distribute 500 Grams and More of a Mixture and Substance Containing Methamphetamine and Aiding and Abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). See PSR ¶ 1, at 3; Indictment at 1-2, filed April 11, 2017 (Doc, 15).
12. On June 22, 2017, Renteria was placed on courtesy supervision in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and she was allowed to reside with her mother, who served as her third-party custodian. See PSR ¶ 9, at 4; Order Granting Defendant's Helen Renteria's Unopposed Motion for Modification of Conditions of Release, filed June 22, 2017 (Doc. 29)("Conditions for Release II").
13. On November 2, 2017, Renteria's conditions of release were modified to allow her to continue to reside in California, and her mother was removed as the third-party custodian. See PSR ¶ 9, at 4; Order Granting Defendant's Helen Renteria's Second Unopposed Motion for Modification of Conditions of Release, filed November 2, 2017 (Doc. 35)("Conditions for Release III").
14. On November 29, 2017, Renteria failed to report to her pretrial officer. See PSR ¶ 10, at 4.
15. "Attempts to telephonically contact the defendant were unsuccessful and her telephone went straight to voicemail." PSR ¶ 10, at 4.
16. "The defendant failed to return calls left for her on November 29, 2017." PSR ¶ 10, at 4.
17. On December 1, 2017, a warrant was issued for Renteria's arrest. See PSR ¶ 10, at 4.
18. More than seventeen months later, on May 13, 2019, Renteria was arrested. See PSR ¶ 11, at 4.1
In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the Supreme Court of the United States of America severed the mandatory provisions from the Sentencing Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1976, thus making Guidelines sentencing ranges effectively advisory. In excising the two sections, the Supreme Court left the remainder of the Sentencing Reform Act intact, including 18 U.S.C. § 3553 : United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. at 261, 125 S.Ct. 738.
Congress has directed sentencing courts to impose a sentence "sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to comply with four statutorily defined purposes enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) :
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(D).
[A] defendant who has been found guilty of an offense described in any Federal statute ... shall be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of this chapter so as to achieve the purposes set forth in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of section 3553(a)(2) to the extent that they are applicable in light of all the circumstances of the case.
18 U.S.C. § 3551. To achieve these purposes, § 3553(a) directs sentencing courts to consider: (i) the Guidelines; (ii) the offense’ nature and the nature of the defendant's character; (iii) the available sentences; (iv) the policy favoring uniformity in sentences for defendants who commit similar crimes; (v) the need to provide restitution to victims; and (vi) any pertinent United States Sentencing Commission policy statements in effect on the date of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
Although the Guidelines are no longer mandatory, both the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit have clarified that, while the Guidelines are one of several factors which § 3553(a) enumerates, they are entitled to careful consideration. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 349, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (); United States v. Cage, 451 F.3d 585, 593 (10th Cir. 2006) (). They are significant, because "the Guidelines are an expression of popular political will about sentencing that is entitled to due consideration ... [and] represent at this point eighteen years’ worth of careful consideration of the proper sentence for federal offenses." United States v. Cage, 451 F.3d at 593 (internal quotation marks omitted)(quoting United States v. Terrell, 445 F.3d 1261, 1265 (10th Cir. 2006) ). A reasonable sentence is one that also "avoid[s] unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. at 261-62, 125 S.Ct. 738.
The Tenth Circuit has "joined a number of other circuits in holding that a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable." United States v. Terrell, 445 F.3d 1261, 1264 (10th Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds by Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. at 349, 127 S.Ct. 2456, as recognized in United States v. Zamora-Solorzano, 528 F.3d 1247, 1251 n.3 (10th Cir. 2008). This presumption, however, is an appellate presumption, and not one that the trial court can or should apply. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46-47, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) ; Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 90-91, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) ; Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. at 351, 127 S.Ct. 2456. Instead, the trial court must undertake the § 3553(a) balancing of factors without any presumption in favor of the advisory2 Guidelines sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. at 351, 127 S.Ct. 2456 ; Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. at 46-47, 128 S.Ct. 586 ; Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. at 90-91, 128 S.Ct. 558.
While the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker has given the sentencing court discretion that it did not have earlier, the sentencing court's first task remains to...
To continue reading
Request your trial