United States v. Gutierrez, No. 12-4019 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant Gutierrez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and Defendant Perez-Sanchez was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute and five counts of distribution or possession with intent to distribute. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the district court to conclude that a witness for the prosecution was an expert in reviewing Spanish-language audio recordings of controlled drug transactions involving Perez-Sanchez and preparing written transcripts of the dialogue in English; the district court did not err in permitting the jury to read the transcripts that the expert prepared where it was for the jury to decide whether the government met its burden to show that the transcripts were reliable enough to weigh against Perez-Sanchez; the evidence was sufficient to convict Perez-Sanchez; and the district court did not err in applying an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c) to Gutierrez's sentence where Gutierrez oversaw distribution by Perez-Sanchez, supplied the drugs, directed Perez-Sanchez to customers; and controlled the proceeds of the transaction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. District court did not err in permitting a witness to testify regarding translation of certain recordings as the witness, an experienced and certified interpreter, was an expert under Rule 702; it was for the jury to determine if the transcripts the interpreter prepared were reliable enough to weigh against defendant Perez-Sanchez; evidence was sufficient to support Perez-Sanchez's conviction for conspiracy and distribution and possession of methamphetamine; no error in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(c) against defendant Gutierrez for his role in the offense.
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.