United States v. Corrales-Portillo, No. 14-1769 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseBrothers Jose and Ismael were indicted for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846; possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. 2; and possessing heroin with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. 2. Jose pled guilty to count one, and the district court1 sentenced him to 175 months imprisonment. Ismael proceeded to trial, and a jury convicted him of all three counts. The district court sentenced Ismael to concurrent sentences of 188 months imprisonment on each count. The Eighth Circuit affirmed Jose’s sentence, and Ismael’s conviction and sentence. The court upheld denial of a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search of Jose’s truck, rejecting an argument that officers lacked reasonable suspicion for a stop because the informant had no prior track record at the department and the officers failed to independently corroborate the information he provided. The court also upheld a deliberate ignorance jury instruction; the government adduced sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to find Ismael intentionally conspired to distribute illegal drugs.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. In this case, the totality of the circumstances - including the police officers' independent observations - sufficiently established the first-time informant's reliability and provided reasonable suspicion for the stop of defendants' vehicle; there was a sufficient factual basis for giving a deliberate ignorance instruction; evidence was sufficient to support defendant Ismael Corrales-Portillo's convictions for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and heroin and for possession of the drugs with intent to distribute; no error in denying Ismael Corrales-Potillo's motion for a minimal role reduction; Jose Corrales-Portillo's sentence is affirmed as he has failed to establish that the court plainly erred in calculating his guidelines range and he has failed to overcome the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence was reasonable.
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.