United States v. Adinolfi, 14 F.3d 45, 1st Cir. (1993)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Adinolfi, 14 F.3d 45, 1st Cir. (1993)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs14 F.
3d 45
NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished
opinions may be cited only in related cases.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
Daniel A. ATILIO-ADINOLFI, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 93-1029.
United States Court of Appeals,
First Circuit.
December 30, 1993
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico
Benicio Sanchez Rivera, Federal Public Defender, and Miguel A.A.
Nogueras-Castro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, on brief for
appellant.
Charles E. Fitzwilliam, United States Attorney, Carlos A. Perez, Assistant
United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior Litigation
Counsel, on brief for appellee.
D.Puerto Rico.
AFFIRMED.
Before Cyr, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam.
Defendant-appellant Daniel Atilio Adinolfi pleaded guilty on September 10,
1992 to several counts of an indictment charging him with conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute narcotics, distribution of narcotics, and
possession with intent to distribute narcotics. From October 22 to 29, 1992, one
of Atilio's alleged co-conspirators, Jairo Giraldo Parra, was tried under the same
indictment. On December 16, 1992, following receipt of the presentence
investigation report ("the PSI report"), the district court sentenced Atilio to
concurrent terms of ninety-two months' imprisonment on each count, a
supervised release term of five years, and a special monetary assessment of $
350. In arriving at this sentence under the sentencing guidelines, the district
court made a two-level upward adjustment in Atilio's offense level pursuant to
U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1(c) on the ground that Atilio was a "manager" or
"supervisor" in the narcotics distribution conspiracy. Atilio appeals from this
upward adjustment. We affirm.
2
In explaining its ruling that Atilio was a "manager" or "supervisor" in this
criminal organization, the district court stated,
3 Court has heard argument of counsel and has heard the defendant and is now
The
ready to rule on the issue of the two points on the issue of supervisor-supervisory
role. The-this Court is in a position to rule on this issue particularly because I
presided over the trial of Jairo Giraldo Parra, and certainly the facts in that case
establish that-those facts establish-establishes that the defendant Adinolfi, Atilio
Adinolfi, certainly held a position of trust and confidence with-within Giraldo
Parra's drug trafficking organization and he certainly played a supervisory role, a
very important role.
4
He was present at most of the transactions. He also drove with one of the agents
who was acting as a[n] undercover agent. He also participated in the
transactions, and certainly he was there in charge of the business, too,
sometimes in the counter, and he was a very important cog in the trafficking
machinery constantly oiled by Parra. Therefore, I shall deny you[r] counsel's
motion to eliminate the two-points enhancement under Section 3B1.1B [sic] of
the sentencing guidelines.
Atilio objects on appeal, as he did in the district court, that it was impermissible
for the district court to rely on evidence introduced at the trial of Jairo Giraldo
Parra. Since Atilio, having pleaded guilty, was not a party to that trial, Atilio
argues that he had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who provided
the evidence the district court used against him. Once that trial evidence is
excluded, Atilio contends, there was insufficient evidence before the district
court to justify the upward adjustment.
We have stated that "[i]t is well settled that during the sentencing proceedings,
a district court has broad discretion in determining the information that may be
received and considered regarding a defendant." United States v. Pellerito, 918
F.2d 999, 1002 (1st Cir. 1990). As long as the district court complies with the
requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 by making a finding as to each factual
matter controverted by the defendant, the district court "has a right to use the
evidence presented at trial in determining the sentence to be imposed." Id.
Accordingly, we have upheld the sentencing judge's reliance on trial evidence
when the trial had resulted in a mistrial and the defendant had subsequently
pleaded guilty, United States v. Hanono-Surujun, 914 F.2d 15, 19 (1st Cir.
1990), and-as in the instant case-when the defendant had pleaded guilty and did
not stand trial, and the trial evidence stemmed from the trial of co-defendants.
United States v. Fuentes-Moreno, 895 F.2d 24, 26 (1st Cir. 1990). Our review
of the record shows that Atilio did not controvert any specific facts from that
trial. Accordingly, the district court was entitled to rely on evidence from the
trial of Giraldo Parra in reaching its determination under Sec. 3B1.1.
7
In any event, even if the district court had disregarded the evidence from the
trial of Giraldo Parra, we find that there remained sufficient evidence to sustain
the challenged ruling. Since the question whether Atilio was a manager or
supervisor "is a question of the application of the Guidelines to the particular
facts" of this case, United States v. Wright, 873 F.2d 437, 443 (1st Cir. 1989),
we review the district court's determination that the evidence was sufficient
only for clear error. United States v. Corcimiglia, 967 F.2d 724, 726 (1st Cir.
1992); Wright, supra, 873 F.2d at 444.
To meet its burden of proving that an upward adjustment is warranted, the
government must demonstrate that the defendant exercised "some degree of
control over others involved in the commission of the offense or he must have
been responsible for organizing others for the purpose of carrying out the
crime." United States v. Castellone, 985 F.2d 21, 26 (1st Cir. 1993) (quoting
United States v. Fuller, 897 F.2d 1217, 1220 (1st Cir. 1990)). At the change of
plea hearing, the prosecution offered the following account of Atilio's actions
as part of the narcotics distribution conspiracy.
9
Atilio
... and others operated from a business establishment known as Mi Pequena
Colombia Restaurant ... in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico to carry out an operation of
distribution of cocaine and heroin....
10 September 25, 1991, the undercover agent met again with Victor Rodriquez
On
Alvarez at the Magno's Pizza Restaurant at which time another transaction of heroin
took place for $7,000. At that-after that transaction took place, Victor Rodriguez
Alvarez carried the brown paper bag containing the $7,000 to the Mi Pequena
Colombia Restaurant where Victor Rodriguez, where Daniel Alberto Atilio Adinolfi,
Jairo Giraldo Parra and Edgar Rodriguez Alvarez were waiting.
11
Victor
Rodriguez Alvarez gave the brown paper bag to codefendant and
coconspirator Daniel Alberto Atilio Adinolfi at which time they entered the rear
room of the restaurant.
12
On December 6, 1991, an informant of the Drug Enforcement Administration
made arrangements with Daniel Alberto Atilio Adinolfi to buy half a kilogram
of cocaine for $5,000. The confidential informant proceeded to the Mi Pequena
Colombia Restaurant where he met with Daniel Alberto Atilio Adinolfi at
which time they entered a vehicle, and they drove around the block at which
time agents conducting surveillance noticed Jorge Omar Lopez Almeida
performing counter-surveillance during the transaction.
13
Once the transaction was completed inside the vehicle, they returned to the Mi
Pequena Colombia Restaurant where both the confidential informant and Atilio
Adinolfi exited the car. The cooperating individual entered an undercover
vehicle being driven at that time by Special Agent Hector Ortiz at which time
agents conducting surveillance noticed when Atilio Adinolfi signaled Jorge
Omar Lopez Almeida who was directly across from the Mi Pequena Colombia
Restaurant, and they also saw-observed when Atilio Adinolfi boarded the
vehicle and proceeded to follow the undercover car being driven by Special
Agent Hector Ortiz.
14
An undercover agent from the Drug Enforcement Administration who was
conducting surveillance inside the restaurant listened when codefendant and
coconspirator Edgar Rodriguez Velazquez told Daniel Alberto Atilio Adinolfi
that the undercover vehicle was heading west on Domenech Avenue.
15
Subsequently, on December 11, 1991, the cooperating individual informed
Daniel Alberto Atilio Adinolfi that the half kilogram of cocaine was short
several grams.
16
On December 12th, 1991, the cooperating individual went to the Mi Pequena
Colombia Restaurant where Daniel Alberto Atilio Adinolfi provided him with
six grams of cocaine missing from the original half kilogram of cocaine, and he
also provided him with a sample of heroin. Both the missing six grams of
cocaine and the sample of heroin were given to Daniel Alberto Atilio Adinolfi
by codefendant and coconspirator Jairo Giraldo Parra.
17
Atilio agreed at the change of plea hearing that this statement of facts was
accurate, at least insofar as it related to Atilio's own conduct. The PSI report set
out essentially the same version of the facts, to which Atilio made no objection
at the sentencing hearing.
18
Although it is true that this account by no means establishes unambiguously
that Atilio was a manager or supervisor, we cannot say that such a finding was
clearly erroneous. Atilio's conduct in negotiating the details of a sale of cocaine
and agreeing to supply a shortfall in delivery would reasonably suggest a
managerial or supervisory role if coupled with some evidence that Atilio to
some degree directed or controlled at least one other criminal participant. See
United States v. Veilleux, 949 F.2d 522, 525 (1st Cir. 1991) ("Setting the
details of drug transactions in such a manner as to orchestrate the sales, where
the offender also directs at least one accomplice, is sufficient to uphold a Sec.
3B1.1(c) sentencing enhancement against a challenge of clear error"). See also
Castellone, supra, 985 F.2d at 26 (the fact that the defendant "determined who
purchased, when and where sales took place, prices, and profit ... can be said of
any independent, street-level dealer" and is insufficient where "[t]here is
simply no evidence that [the defendant] exercised any control over ... anyone
else").
19
The necessary evidence that Atilio to some degree directed or controlled at least
one other accomplice is present here. When Victor Rodriguez Alvarez entered
the Mi Pequena Colombia restaurant on September 25, 1991, he handed over a
brown paper bag-containing $ 7,000 of proceeds from the sale of heroin-to
Atilio. The fact that Rodriguez Alvarez rendered the proceeds of the drug
transaction to Atilio reasonably suggests that Atilio exercised at least some
degree of direction or control over Rodriguez Alvarez as part of the criminal
organization. Certainly it was not clear error for the sentencing judge to
interpret the facts in that light.
20
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
You might also like
- No ratings yetUnited States v. Aart Vanwort, Walter Cabral, Jeanmarie Chapoteau, Vincent Cicali, Michael Crown, Alexander Donchenko, Bruce Duignan, Daniel Dymenstein-Kremer, Richard Keim, Richard Hopkins, Temistocles Moura-Torres, Claudio Petenucci, Gessi Prado, Henrique Rajas, Anthony Ruotolo, Sergio Stofel-Decastro, Nahid Tabibi, Christianus Vanwort, Eduardo Varitzo, Michael Zacharias, Pedro Dasilva, Alfred Donchenko, Alexander Fontanelle, Steven M. Finn, Appeal of Jeanmarie Chapoteau, Michael Crown, Pedro Dasilva, Steven M. Finn, Bruce Duignan, Vincent Cicali, 887 F.2d 375, 2d Cir. (1989)19 pages
