United States v. Diaz-Pellegaud; United States v. Garcia; United States v. Burgos-Valdez; United States v. Melendez-Rocha, No. 10-3797 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis case stemmed from a multi-year investigation into an interstate and international drug smuggling and distribution organization. Defendants, Jesus Fabel Diaz-Pellegaud, Jose Garcia, Jose Enrique Burgos-Valdez, and Benjamin Melendez-Rocha, appealed their convictions and sentences on various grounds. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Diaz-Pellegaud, Garcia, and Burgos-Valdez; the court affirmed Garcia's presumptively reasonable guidelines sentence; there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's sentencing of Burgos-Valdez; the district court did not err in denying Melendez-Rocha's request for a new trial where there was "substantial evidence" of his guilt and the verdict was not "substantially swayed" by a prejudicial comment, and therefore the curative instruction was "sufficient in the context of the entire trial" to alleviate any prejudice that could have resulted from the reference to his immigration status; and there was no abuse of discretion in Melendez-Rocha's sentence.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support Diaz-Pellegaud's conviction for money laundering and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and marijuana; evidence was sufficient to support Garcia's conviction for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and marijuana; district court did not err in denying Garcia's request for a minor role reduction under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.2; Garcia's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; evidence was sufficient to support Burgos-Valdez's conviction for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine; district court considered the 3553(a) factors in setting Burgos-Valedez's sentence, and this sentence was not substantively unreasonable; in light of substantial evidence of Melendez-Rocha's guilt, the verdict was not swayed by an improper comment about her immigration status, and the district court's curative instruction was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice; no procedural error occurred in setting Melendez-Rocha's sentence, and the sentence was not unreasonable.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.