United States v. Edi Montes-Gutierrez, No. 19-1311 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge, and Loken and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not clearly err in determining the amount of methamphetamine for which defendant was responsible, and it cogently explained the reasons for crediting informant testimony regarding the amount of drugs involved in the offense.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1311 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Edi Montes-Gutierrez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: December 9, 2019 Filed: February 7, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Edi Montes-Gutierrez pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court1 sentenced Montes-Gutierrez to 135 months of imprisonment, below the 168 to 210 month range recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.” or “Guidelines”) and calculated by the district court. When determining the Guidelines range, the district court determined MontesGutierrez’s base offense level was 38 due in part to the amount of methamphetamine involved in his offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (providing drug quantity table for determining base offense level). This conclusion was dependent on testimony by an informant, who claimed Montes-Gutierrez and another man had provided him approximately fifteen pounds of methamphetamine. On appeal, Montes-Gutierrez argues the district court wrongly credited the informant’s testimony about the amount of drugs he bought from Montes-Gutierrez and thus improperly calculated the offense level and Guidelines range. According to Montes-Gutierrez, the informant’s testimony was not to be believed because it was inconsistent, unreliable, and uncorroborated. Reviewing the district court’s drug-quantity determination for clear error, we reject Montes-Gutierrez’s credibility-based challenge. See United States v. Spencer, 592 F.3d 866, 881 (8th Cir. 2010) (setting forth the standard of review and our deference to the district court’s credibility determinations). The district court cogently explained its reasons for believing the informant witness regarding the amount of methamphetamine involved in the offense, and we detect no clear error in its conclusion. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
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.
