United States v. Pelliere

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 8/21/96
TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 95-3321
(D.C. No. 93-CR-40003-03)
ARMANDO NELSON PELLIERE, (D. Kan.)

Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL, LOGAN, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

This is an appeal from resentencing in a criminal case in which Defendant-

Appellant Armando Nelson Pelliere pled guilty to possession with intent to

distribute cocaine hydrochloride. The charges against Pelliere in this case stem

from his participation in a large drug conspiracy involving numerous

coconspirators who imported cocaine from Panama and distributed it in Junction

City, Kansas. Pelliere was charged in two counts of a multi-count indictment

1
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
with conspiracy to possess crack cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 846, and with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Pelliere pled

guilty to the possession charge, and the government dismissed the conspiracy

charge. In sentencing Pelliere, the district court imposed a three-level

enhancement for Pelliere’s role in the offense as manager or supervisor of the

drug distribution scheme, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), and a two-level enhancement for

obstruction of justice, U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Pelliere appealed his sentence to this

court in United States v. Pelliere, 57 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 1995). On appeal, this

court reversed the obstruction of justice enhancement and remanded the case for

specific factual findings regarding Pelliere’s role in the offense. Pelliere, 57 F.3d

at 940. On September 11, 1995, Pelliere was resentenced. In support of its

position, the government presented the same evidence previously presented, as

well as additional testimony. After reviewing all of the evidence presented, the

district court found Pelliere to be a supervisor or manager under U.S.S.G. §

3B1.1(b) and enhanced Pelliere’s Guideline level by three points. Pelliere was

sentenced to 95 months imprisonment and four years supervised release. Pelliere

once again appeals the findings of the district court. We exercise jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM.

-2-
 I.

United States Sentencing Guideline 3B1.1(b) provides a three level

enhancement for those offenders who are determined to be a “manager or

supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) [of a] criminal activity [that]

involve[s] five or more participants or was otherwise extensive . . . .” Under

Application Note 1 to this guideline, a “participant” is defined as someone who is

criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been

convicted of that offense. A manager or supervisor must have decision-making

authority or control over a subordinate. United States v. Roberts, 14 F.3d 502,

524 (10th Cir. 1993). “[I]n order for a defendant to receive an adjustment under §

3B1.1(b) for his role as a manger or supervisor, the defendant must have managed

or supervised at least one other participant.” United States v. Johnson, 4 F.3d

904, 917 (10th Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), cert.

denied, 510 U.S. 1123 (1994).

The government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the

evidence any sentence enhancement it asserts the court should impose. See

United States v. Torres, 53 F.3d 1129, 1142 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.

2599 (1995). The district court in this case concluded that the government had

met its burden under § 3B1.1(b) and therefore enhanced Pelliere’s sentence. The

district court’s findings of fact as to aggravating role are reviewed for clear error;

-3-
the application of those facts to the guidelines is reviewed de novo. Pelliere, 57

F.3d at 940.

II.

“In enhancing a defendant’s sentence based on his role in the offense, a

district court must make specific factual findings as to that role.” Roberts, 14

F.3d at 522 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). On Pelliere’s first

appeal to this court, this court concluded that the district court had made

inadequate factual findings to support its determination that Pelliere was a

manager or supervisor under § 3B1.1(b). Pelliere, 57 F.3d at 940 (“Although the

court . . . concluded that an enhancement was proper, it articulated no specific

findings to support its decision. Here . . . appellate review of the propriety of

applying this serious enhancement is hindered by the absence of a clear picture of

the reasoning employed by the sentencing court.”) (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted). The court further stated that “[s]pecific fact findings are

particularly vital in this case” because some of the evidence relied upon by the

government was hearsay. Id. While the court acknowledged that “the district

court may use reliable hearsay testimony in determining an appropriate sentence,”

id. (emphasis added), this court concluded that the district court erred because it

“did not specify what particular hearsay statements it was relying upon, nor did it

make any assessment of reliability,” id.

-4-
 On this appeal, Pelliere argues that the district court erred at resentencing

in enhancing his sentence because the factual findings of the district court were

not supported by the evidence. We disagree. The evidence presented to the

district court can be summarized as follows. 1 First, Lisa Ponder indicated in her

grand jury testimony that she was the girlfriend of Armando Pelliere, the

defendant, during the period of June 1992, and that on June 17, 1992, Pelliere and

Marcos Torres came to her apartment to ask her to make a trip to New York to

pick up “their stuff” (cocaine). R.O.A., Vol. V at 10-11. Ponder stated that the

money provided for her trip to New York belonged to “Porsche” (Torres) and

“Armando” (Pelliere). Id. at 12-14. Ponder further testified that after the

arrangements had been made for her trip to New York, she put on a girdle and

Pelliere packed it with $21,000.00 in cash. Id. at 18-19. Finally, Ponder testified

that she was advised by her previous boyfriend, Charles Arevalo, who obtained

cocaine from Torres, that while Torres was in Panama, Pelliere and another

individual were “taking his business, were running his business.” Id. at 62. She

stated that Torres was out of the country for approximately three to four months

during the fall of 1991. Id.

1
That the following evidence was considered by the district court in
enhancing Pelliere’s sentence under § 3B1.1 is clear from the district court’s
memorandum and order dated September 15, 1995, which constitutes the court’s
findings regarding the enhancement. R.O.A., Vol. I, doc. 416.

-5-
 Second, on September 23, 1992, Anthony Felix testified under oath before a

federal grand jury in Topeka, Kansas. While most of Felix’s testimony related to

Torres, he did indicate that while Torres was in Panama during the Fall of 1991

his roommate, Roland Mitchell, was receiving cocaine from Pelliere and that

“Armando was more or less running the operation while Porsche (Torres) was in

Panama.” R.O.A., Vol. IV at 10. Third, Darryl Jackson also testified under oath

on September 23, 1992, before the grand jury investigating this case. He testified

that at one point he used to sell small amounts of cocaine for Torres. R.O.A.,

Vol. VI at 4-6. He indicated that shortly after Torres left the country in

approximately August of 1991, he was visited by Pelliere and Nagro (Alcides

Plato) who delivered cocaine for resale. Id. at 16-17. Jackson described Plato as

Pelliere’s “flunky.” Id. Jackson stated that after this visit, he continued to deal

with Pelliere, and indicated that after Torres returned from Panama he “stuck”

with Pelliere. Id. at 18.

Jackson also testified at Pelliere’s resentencing in September of 1995. At

that hearing Jackson indicated that during a meeting between himself, Torres,

Plato and Pelliere, he was advised that in Torres’ absence he was to obtain

cocaine from Plato and Pelliere. R.O.A., Vol. VII at 10-11. Jackson testified that

during the approximately six month period that Torres was out of the country he

obtained his cocaine through Plato and Pelliere. Id. Jackson testified that he

-6-
believed Pelliere controlled the source of cocaine. Id. at 13. He also stated that it

was his impression, based on his experience, that Pelliere was running the Torres

cocaine operation while Torres was in Panama, and that neither he nor Plato could

obtain cocaine without first contacting Pelliere. Id. at 14.

Finally, United States Customs Agent Jim Kanatzar, the agent assigned to

investigate the case, testified before the court at the sentencing hearing held on

February 16, 1994. Agent Kanatzar indicated that all of the information provided

by witnesses Lisa Ponder, Anthony Felix and Daryl Jackson was corroborated by

other facts collected in the investigation. R.O.A., Vol. III at 24-26. He also

testified generally about Pelliere’s position in the drug distribution process while

Torres was in Panama, indicating that Pelliere was responsible for picking up the

cocaine orders from Plato and returning the cocaine to Plato for distribution. Id.

at 20-25.

Based on this evidence the district court found Pelliere to be a manager or

supervisor pursuant to § 3B1.1. The court found that “the government had

introduced reliable evidence demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence

that Pelliere was a manager or supervisor in the criminal conspiracy to distribute

cocaine.” R.O.A., Vol. I, doc. 416 at 4. We agree. Jackson, Ponder and Felix all

testified to Torres’ absence from the United States during the fall of 1991. They

all indicated that the drug trafficking business was continued, at least in part,

-7-
under the supervision of Pelliere. These were witnesses who had firsthand

knowledge of the Torres organization and, for the most part, were involved in it. 2

With respect to Jackson specifically, not only did he testify under oath during the

grand jury investigation, he also testified during Pelliere’s resentencing hearing.

Thus, the district court had the opportunity to make a personal, first-hand

assessment of Jackson’s credibility. Each of the witnesses testified independently

to facts sufficient to sustain an enhancement under § 3B1.1. The district court’s

determination that the witnesses were credible and that the evidence demonstrates

that Pelliere was a manager or supervisor of a criminal enterprise that involved

2
Pelliere concedes that Ponder made a trip to New York in order to
purchase cocaine, and that he assisted Torres when Ponder made the trip. Br. of
Appellant at 9 (“That Lisa Ponder undertook a trip to New York to purchase
cocaine for Marcos Torres’ operation is not in issue, nor is it in issue that
defendant Pelliere assisted Torres when Lisa made the trip.”).

-8-
five or more participants was not clearly erroneous. 3 We therefore AFFIRM

Pelliere’s sentence.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge

3
There is no dispute that this enterprise involved five or more
participants. The only issue on appeal is whether Pelliere was a supervisor or
manager within the enterprise. We do note, however, that based upon the
discussion above and our review of the record, it is clear that the enterprise
included at least the following six individuals: Marcos Torres, Alcides Plato,
Anthony Felix, Daryl Jackson, Lisa Ponder, and Pelliere himself. See United
States v. Cordoba, 71 F.3d 1543, 1547 (10th Cir. 1995) (the defendant is included
among the participants for the purposes of section 3B1.1).

-9-