United States v. Pimentel-Lopez, No. 14-30210 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute. Principally at issue is whether the district judge was entitled to make a drug quantity finding in excess of that found by the jury in its special verdict. The court concluded that the Apprendi v. New Jersey line of cases is beside the point because defendant is not complaining that the district court raised the maximum statutory sentence. The court concluded that the district court cannot attribute more than that amount to defendant without contradicting the jury on a fact it found as a result of its deliberations. District judges have many powers, but contradicting juries as to findings of facts they have been asked to make is not among them. The court also concluded that, because the hearsay statements of two witnesses does not meet the court's “minimal indicia of reliability” standard, the district court was not justified in relying on them in determining defendant’s sentence. Absent these statements, there is no evidence indicating that defendant exercised some control over others and the application of the organizer enhancement is clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated a sentence and remanded for resentencing in a case in which the jury made a special finding that the quantity of drugs involved was less than 50 grams, but the district judge calculated the sentence based on his own finding that the quantity involved was far in excess of 50 grams. The panel wrote that the Apprendi v. New Jersey line of cases is beside the point because the defendant is not complaining that the district court raised the maximum statutory sentence, and that this is not a case where the jury failed to find a fact under the exacting standard applicable to criminal cases. The panel explained that this is a case where the jury made an affirmative finding after deliberations, under the highest standard of proof, that the amount of methamphetamine attributable to the defendant is less than 50 grams. The panel held that district judges do not have the power to contradict the jury’s finding under these circumstances. The panel remanded with instructions that the defendant be resentenced on the premise that the quantity of drugs involved in his crimes was less than 50 grams. The panel held that because two witness’s hearsay statements did not meet the “minimal indicia of reliability” standard, the district court was not justified in relying on them in determining the sentence. Because absent these UNITED STATES V. PIMENTEL-LOPEZ 3 statements, there is no evidence that the defendant exercised some control over others involved in the commission of the evidence, the panel held that the district court clearly erred in assessing an organizer enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c).
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.