United States v. German

Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-19-2004 USA v. German Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-3420 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "USA v. German" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 810. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/810 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 03-3420 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RAFAEL GERMAN Appellant On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey (D.C. Crim. Action No. 02-cr-00879-1) District Judge: Hon. John W. Bissell Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 15, 2004 BEFORE: RENDELL, STAPLETON, and LAY,* Circuit Judges (Filed: April 19, 2004) OPINION OF THE COURT * Hon. Donald P. Lay, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: Appellant Rafael German pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute, and possess with intent to distribute, more than 500 grams of cocaine. He was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment. German argues that the District Court erred in sentencing him for between five and fifteen kilograms of cocaine. However, in his plea agreement German agreed to stipulate as follows at sentencing: The applicable guideline is § 2D1.1. This guideline carries a Base Offense Level of thirty-two, pursuant to § 2D1.1(a)(3) and (c)(4), because the offense involved at least five kilograms but less than fifteen kilograms of cocaine. Appellee’s Supp. App. at 6. Moreover, even if German were permitted to challenge the stipulated drug quantity, the District Court would not have been clearly erroneous in finding that German was responsible for between five and fifteen kilograms of cocaine. He and his co- conspirators agreed to sell seven kilograms of cocaine to an undercover officer, and the two kilograms that were actually delivered represented the first of three installments in the drug deal. As German’s Pre-Sentence Report noted, “[a]ll the other defendants agreed that the object of this conspiracy was for the distribution of seven kilograms of cocaine.” PSR at 20; see also PSR at ¶ 23 (“German agreed to provide Rodriguez with the cocaine in installments. He would first give him two kilograms, then another two kilograms and finally three kilograms.”). 2 The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed. 3