United States v. Sanchez
| Decision Date | 01 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 18-2538,19-1591,19-1335,18-3088,18-3045,& 19-3405,19-1612,s. 18-2538 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerardo SANCHEZ, Edgar Roque, Phillip Diaz, Richard Roque, Omar Ramirez, Steven G. Mendoza, & Juan J. Cervantes, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Helene B. Greenwald, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee in Nos. 18-2538, 18-3045, 18-3088, 19-1335, 19-1591, 19-1612.
Andrianna D. Kastanek, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee in No. 19-3405.
Daniel J. Hillis, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Springfield, IL, Thomas W. Patton, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant Gerardo Sanchez.
Michelle L. Jacobs, Vanessa K. Eisenmann, Attorneys, Biskupic & Jacobs, S.C., Mequon, WI, for Defendant-Appellant Edgar Roque.
Laura K. McNally, Robin V. Waters, Attorneys, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Chicago, IL, Lisa Rubin, Attorney, Loeb & Loeb, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant Phillip Diaz.
Ruth F. Masters, Attorney, Masters Law, Oak Park, IL, for Defendant-Appellant Richard Roque.
Amir Mohabbat, Attorney, Chicagoland & Suburban Law Firm, P.C., Oak Park, IL, for Defendant-Appellant Omar Ramirez.
James M. Falvey, Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant Steven G. Mendoza.
Michael Bernard Nash, Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant Juan J. Cervantes.
Before Sykes, Chief Judge, and Wood and Brennan, Circuit Judges.
The Roque drug trafficking organization moved in excess of 1,500 kilograms of cocaine and 100 kilograms of heroin from Mexico to Chicago for distribution and sale. The experienced district court judge who presided over these consolidated cases had never seen "the level of drugs that were pumped into Chicago" by this criminal enterprise. On appeal, the Roque organization defendants largely responsible for these crimes—Gerardo Sanchez, Edgar Roque, Phillip Diaz, Richard Roque, Omar Ramirez, Steven Mendoza, and Juan Cervantes—do not dispute their convictions, but rather contest their sentences.
Although each defendant appeals individually, they raise many of the same arguments. Most contend the district court misinterpreted the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities under § 3553(a)(6) and failed to adequately consider their arguments on this issue. Two of those defendants also challenge the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines, and two other defendants contest the imposition of certain supervised release conditions.
We conclude that the district court committed no error. The district court properly avoided unwarranted sentencing disparities, correctly applied the Sentencing Guidelines, and appropriately imposed supervised release conditions, with one minor exception that we order to be amended as necessary. In all other respects, we affirm the defendants’ sentences.
The Roque organization may have ended in Chicago, but it began in Los Angeles. In 2010, E. Roque joined with Sergio Ochoa and Jose Ochoa to obtain and distribute large amounts of drugs between the two cities. The trio bought the drugs in Los Angeles, transported them for sale within Chicago, and sent the proceeds back to Mexico. Although working in unison with the Ochoas, E. Roque kept his own crew, which included his brother R. Roque and Manuel Aragon Contreras.
E. Roque's distribution relationship with the Ochoa brothers eventually ended. In 2012, the Ochoas split from E. Roque, and in 2013, Contreras defected to the Ochoas. Together, they formed the Ochoa/Contreras drug trafficking organization. This new group, although sharing similar origins and engaging in similar conduct, existed separate and apart from the Roque organization from which it sprang. With the Ochoas gone, E. Roque alone ran what remained of the original organization and continued with his distribution efforts between Los Angeles and Chicago.
Like most criminal enterprises, the Roque organization had a hierarchy. E. Roque sat at the top. One step below came P. Diaz, E. Roque's brother-in-law who worked as a supervisor of sorts. Further down, R. Roque assisted in all elements of the drug trafficking. The mid-to-lower level members—those responsible for delivering narcotics and working the stash houses—included Sanchez, Mendoza, Ramirez, and J. Cervantes. Ivan Diaz (P. Diaz's brother), Angela Cervantes (J. Cervantes's sister), and Anthony Koon also operated within the middle tier. This hierarchical structure facilitated the Roque organization's drug trafficking, money laundering, and firearm possession.
Drug Trafficking. The Roque organization principally used Amtrak Express, a package shipping service, to transport drugs between Los Angeles and Chicago. To help, E. Roque recruited someone inside Amtrak's Los Angeles facility to ensure that the packages avoided inspection or confiscation. These smuggled packages ranged in size from three to forty kilograms of cocaine and one to two kilograms of heroin. When a shipment arrived in Chicago at Union Station, a member of the Roque organization would collect the package, store it at a stash house, and then deliver it as instructed by E. Roque. Between 2012 and 2015, the Roque organization moved at least 159 packages of cocaine or heroin by Amtrak Express from Los Angeles to Chicago.
Money Laundering . The Roque organization also laundered the illicit proceeds from its drug trafficking. Lower-level members, at the direction of E. Roque, deposited funds into the bank accounts of E. Roque himself, R. Roque, P. Diaz, and Sanchez—all in their own names. To avoid bank reporting requirements, these lower-level members deposited the drug proceeds in increments of less than $10,000. The higher-ranking members then used these deposits to benefit themselves and to distribute funds throughout the Roque organization.
Firearm Possession . Firearms went hand-in-hand with this drug trafficking. When arresting Ramirez and Mendoza, law enforcement found a loaded AK-47 and Glock pistol at Ramirez's residence, and an assault rifle and associated ammunition (along with shooting targets emblazoned with "F*** the Police") at Mendoza's residence. Roque organization members also bragged about their firearms via Instagram direct messages to each other. For example, Mendoza sent a photo that depicted a hand holding an automatic rifle with a silencer attached. The photo's caption, translated into English, warned of a "rain of bullet[s] for the snitches."
These appeals concern the sentences of the seven Roque defendants. To provide necessary context for their arguments that they received disparate sentences in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), we describe the sentences given to the other members of the Roque organization and members of the Ochoa/Contreras organization.1 The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois adjudicated all of these cases. Judge Virginia Kendall sentenced the Roque organization defendants, and Judge Robert Gettleman sentenced the Ochoa/Contreras organization defendants.2
First, we describe the sentences of the seven Roque defendants imposed by Judge Kendall. Each pleaded guilty to either one or two counts of the fourth superseding indictment. All seven—Sanchez, E. Roque, P. Diaz, R. Roque, Ramirez, Mendoza, and J. Cervantes—pleaded guilty to Count One, which charged a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, at least one kilogram of heroin and five kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Four—Sanchez, E. Roque, P. Diaz, and R. Roque—also pleaded guilty to Count Seven, which charged a conspiracy to engage in money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).
Sanchez, a courier and money launderer, received a total sentence of 210 months’ imprisonment, composed of 162 months on Count One and 48 months on Count Seven served consecutively. During sentencing, Judge Kendall found him responsible for 231 kilograms of cocaine and 20 kilograms of heroin. Sanchez's 210-month sentence fell at the bottom of his guidelines range of 210 to 262 months.
Judge Kendall imposed supervised release conditions, two of which are relevant here: no contact with any codefendants and drug treatment. First, Judge Kendall orally imposed a condition banning Sanchez from "communicating and being engaged with his co-defendants in this activity." But the no-contact condition in his written judgment of conviction included two codefendants who pleaded guilty before the fourth superseding indictment—Koon and Jorge Luis Ochoa-Canela. Second, on drug treatment, Judge Kendall instructed the probation officer to conduct an "evaluation ... to determine whether [Sanchez] needs any treatment when he's on release, whatever condition would be for that." Sanchez's written judgment included the related condition that he "shall participate, at the direction of a probation officer, in a substance abuse treatment program, which may include urine testing up to a maximum of 104 tests per year."
E. Roque, the leader of the Roque organization, received a total sentence of 420 months’ imprisonment, composed of 300 months on Count One and 120 months on Count Seven served consecutively. During sentencing, Judge Kendall found him responsible for 1,500 kilograms of cocaine and 100 kilograms of heroin. E. Roque's 420-month sentence fell below his guidelines range of life imprisonment.
Concerning unwarranted sentencing disparities under § 3553(a)(6), both E. Roque and the government noted the various sentences that Judge Gettleman gave the Ochoa/Contreras defendants. E. Roque's counsel remarked that the Roque and Ochoa/Contreras cases were "directly related" and that the Ochoa/Contreras defendants "should be in here to give the Court ... the full picture." When E. Roque's counsel referred to the sentences of S. Ochoa (180 months...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Moore
...will have more force when a judge departs from a correctly calculated Guidelines range to impose the sentence." United States v. Sanchez , 989 F.3d 523, 541 (7th Cir. 2021), quoting Statham , 581 F.3d at 556. A defendant who believes he has received an improperly disparate sentence as compa......
-
United States v. Moore
... ... because of a disparity with the sentence of a ... co-defendant," though we recognized that "such an ... argument will have more force when a judge departs from a ... correctly calculated Guidelines range to impose the ... sentence." United States v. Sanchez , 989 F.3d ... 523, 541 (7th Cir. 2021), quoting Statham , 581 F.3d ... at 556. A defendant who believes he has received an ... improperly disparate ... sentence as compared to a co-defendant may bring such a ... challenge. [ 4 ] ... B ... ...
-
United States v. Lovies
...a within-Guidelines sentence, which necessarily accounts for concerns of unwarranted sentencing disparities. See United States v. Sanchez , 989 F.3d 523, 540–41 (7th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). Additionally, the district judge considered and rejected Lovies's argument that he was equall......
-
United States v. Moore
...will have more force when a judge departs from a correctly calculated Guidelines range to impose the sentence." United States v. Sanchez , 989 F.3d 523, 541 (7th Cir. 2021), quoting Statham , 581 F.3d at 556. A defendant who believes he has received an improperly disparate sentence as compa......
-
Sentencing
...rather than similarly situated defendants and desire to “send a message” to other offenders in imposing upward variance); U.S. v. Sanchez, 989 F.3d 523, 539-43 (7th Cir. 2021) (finding court correctly interpreted disparity factor by acknowledging discretion to consider other sentences); U.......
-
Weekly Case Digests March 14, 2022 - March 18, 2022.
...aside, a sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range necessarily complies with 3553(a)(6). United States v. Sanchez, 989 F.3d 523, 54041 (7th Cir. Full Text [divider] WI Court of Appeals Digests WI Court of Appeals District I Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. DeLano Mauri......
-
Sentencing Guidelines RICO Violation.
...aside, a sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range necessarily complies with 3553(a)(6). United States v. Sanchez, 989 F.3d 523, 54041 (7th Cir. Full Text [box type="shadow" ] Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.[/box] Copyright {c} 2022 BridgeTower Med......