United States v. Lobo

17-2894 United States v. Lobo

17-2894 USA v. Lobo

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term, 2018

(Argued:    August 23, 2018 Decided: September 20, 2018)

Docket No. 17‐2894‐cr ________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

LUDWIG CRISS ZELAYA ROMERO, MARIO GUILLERMO MEJIA VARGAS, JUAN MANUEL AVILA MEZA, CARLOS JOSE ZAVALA VELASQUEZ, VICTOR OSWALDO LOPEZ FLORES, JORGE ALFREDO CRUZ CHAVEZ, CARLOS ALBERTO VALLADARES ZUNIGA,

Defendants,

FABIO PORFIRIO LOBO, AKA FABIO PORFIRIO LOBO LOBO, AKA FABIO LOBO,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Schofield, J.) No. 15‐174 ________________________________________________________________________

Before: PARKER, HALL, LOHIER, Circuit Judges.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Schofield, J.) sentencing Defendant‐Appellant Fabio Porfirio Lobo to 288 months of imprisonment pursuant to his guilty plea for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute, and to import into the United States, five or more kilograms of cocaine. We hold principally that the district court did not err in applying the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) to calculate Lobo’s Guidelines score, properly determining that Lobo’s drug‐related activity outside the United States constituted “direct[] involve[ment] in the importation of a controlled substance.” AFFIRMED.

MANUEL RETURETA, Retureta & Wassem, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendant‐Appellant.

EMIL J. BOVE III, Assistant United States Attorney (Matthew Laroche and Karl Metzner, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant‐Appellant  Fabio  Porfirio  Lobo  (“Lobo”)  appeals  from  a  sentence imposed  pursuant  to  a  judgment  entered  in  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the Southern  District  of  New  York  (Schofield,  J.).    Lobo  pleaded  guilty  to  one  count  of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute, and to import into the United States, five or *3 more  kilograms  of  cocaine,  in  violation  of  21  U.S.C.  §  963.1    He  was  sentenced  to  288 months of imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release.    Lobo argues that the district court erred in finding that he was “directly involved in the importation of a controlled substance” cognizable under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) because none of his acts physically occurred in the United States and because the government failed to demonstrate  that  the  shipments  of  cocaine  he  was  involved  with  transporting  were actually  delivered  to  the  United  States.    We  write  here  to  address  the  application  of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C).    In a summary order filed simultaneously with this opinion, we write separately to address Lobo’s remaining arguments.2

We hold that the district court did not err in applying the section 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) enhancement  to  its  Guidelines  calculation.    Lobo  specifically  pleaded  guilty  to conspiracy to import cocaine, and the government presented sufficient evidence to show that  Lobo  participated  directly  in  transporting  hundreds  of  kilograms  of  cocaine  from South America through Honduras for Mexican drug cartels to smuggle into the United States.

1 Although the Grand Jury did not charge the actual commission of violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (importation), 959 (manufacture and distribution) and 960 (penalty provisions therefor), it did charge that the object of the conspiracy was the commission of those substantive offenses. 2 Lobo’s remaining arguments amount to challenges to the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

I.    BACKGROUND

Lobo  is  the  son  of  a  former  President  of  Honduras.    During  the  relevant  time, Lobo used his position to offer security and assistance to the “Cachiros,” a violent drug trafficking  organization,  in  its  distribution  of  large  quantities  of  cocaine  from  South America to the United States through Honduras on behalf of Mexican drug‐traffickers. On  May  16,  2016,  Lobo  pleaded  guilty  to  a  one‐count  indictment  charging  him  with conspiracy to manufacture and distribute, and to import into the United States, five or more kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963.

A. Fatico Hearing

After  pleading  guilty,  the  parties  requested  an  evidentiary  hearing  pursuant  to United  States  v.  Fatico,  603  F.2d  1053  (2d  Cir.  1979).    Lobo  objected  to  several  of  the government’s proposed sentencing enhancements, including the two‐level enhancement provided for in section 2D1.1(b)(15)(C).

The  government’s  sole  witness  at  the  Fatico  hearing  was  Devis  Leonel  Rivera Maradiaga (“Rivera Maradiaga”).    Between 2009 and December 2013, Rivera Maradiaga and  his  brother  were  the  leaders  of  the  Cachiros,  which  was  responsible  for  the distribution  of  approximately  20  metric  tons  of  cocaine  bound  for  the  United  States. Rivera Maradiaga testified that after Lobo’s father, Porfirio Lobo Sosa (“Sosa”), became president of Honduras in 2010, Sosa “assigned” Lobo to act as the “security person for the  Cachiros  drug  trafficking  organization[.]”    D.E.  137  at  58.    On  several  occasions *5 from 2010 to 2013, Rivera Maradiaga provided Lobo advanced notice of incoming cocaine shipments so that Lobo could provide security and logistical support.    On at least two occasions, Lobo investigated possible landing sites within Honduras for the Cachiros to receive drug shipments from South America.    Lobo also provided security and logistical support  to  the  Cachiros  during  two  multi‐hundred‐kilogram  shipments  of  cocaine. Rivera  Maradiaga  compensated  Lobo  with  tens  of  thousands  of  dollars  in  cash,  a Mitsubishi Lancer, and an AR‐15 rifle.3

In  December  2013,  Rivera  Maradiaga  began  cooperating  with  U.S.  law enforcement.    As  part  of  his  cooperation,  Rivera  Maradiaga  recorded  several conversations with Lobo, during which Lobo agreed to provide security and “logistics” support for large shipments of cocaine.

B. The District Court’s Decision

After the conclusion of the Fatico hearing, the district court made findings of fact and conclusions of law.    See United States v. Lobo, No. 15‐cr‐174 (LGS), 2017 WL 2838187 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2017).    The district court found Rivera Maradiaga “credible in light of

3 Rivera Maradiaga also testified that he paid Lobo to give him information to prevent the Honduran government from seizing the Cachiros’s assets. In 2013, pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, 21 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., the United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control identified the Cachiros and Cachiros‐affiliated entities as significant foreign narcotics traffickers and imposed sanctions on Rivera Maradiaga and his brother. Thereafter, Rivera Maradiaga sought help from Lobo to prevent the Honduran Oficina Administradora de Bienes Incautados (“OABI”) from seizing the Cachiros’s assets. In exchange for between $50,000 and $70,000, Lobo gave Rivera Maradiaga a list of assets and properties the OABI planned to seize from the Cachiros.

the entirety  of the record and  observations  of his  tone,  demeanor  and  straightforward answers.”    Id. at *2.    The court reasoned further that:

Although Rivera [Maradiaga]’s testimony was the sole source of direct evidence for some conduct, some of his statements are undisputed and others are bolstered by other evidence. It is undisputed that Defendant participated in meetings with Honduran officials in which they discussed a maritime drug‐trafficking venture for which Defendant received approximately $50,000. The recordings made while Rivera [Maradiaga] was cooperating with the DEA also corroborate his testimony about Defendant’s prior role in the conspiracy; in those recordings, Rivera [Maradiaga] and Defendant discuss Defendant’s providing security and escorting the cocaine shipment “just like the previous times.”

Id.    The  district  court  acknowledged  that  Lobo  conceded  his  participation  in transporting  hundreds  of  kilograms  of  cocaine,  and  he  did  not  object  “to  the Government’s  proposed  findings  of  fact  (based  on  Rivera  [Maradiaga]’s  testimony) regarding Lobo’s involvement in a 400‐kilogram shipment in 2012 and a 1,000‐kilogram shipment in 2013.”    Id. The  district  court  held  that  a  two‐level  enhancement  pursuant  to  U.S.S.G.  § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) was warranted because Lobo played an aggravating role in the offense and was directly involved in two large shipments of cocaine bound for the United States. Id. at *4.    The court accepted Rivera Maradiaga’s testimony that “the cocaine shipped by the Cachiros was distributed to the United States.”    Id.

C. Sentencing

The district court determined that Lobo’s total offense level was 42, reflecting: (i) a base offense level of 38; (ii) a combined seven‐level enhancement based on the district court’s findings following the Fatico hearing, see U.S.S.G. §§ 3B1.1(b), 2D1.1(b)(15)(C), and 2D1.1(b)(1); and (iii) a three‐level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).    With Lobo in Criminal History Category I, the result was a Guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment.

Notwithstanding  the  Guidelines  range,  the  district  court  sentenced  Lobo  to  288 months of imprisonment, a $50,000 fine, and a $266,667 forfeiture judgment.    Applying the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court emphasized the need to achieve general deterrence and to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and stated:

The most damning fact in your background and in your participation in this is that you are not like the police officers who have made plea agreements with the government for a much less amount of time in prison. You were the son of the sitting president of Honduras, and you used your connections, your reputation in your political network to try to further corrupt connections between drug traffickers and Honduran government officials. And these included not only lowly officials, like customs people and military and law enforcement personnel, but also extremely high level officials. In short, what distinguishes your case from so many is that you facilitated strong government support for a large drug trafficking organization for multiple elements of the Honduran government, and you enriched yourself in the process.

J. App. 215.    Lobo did not object or ask the district court to explain further its sentencing decision.

II.    DISCUSSION

Lobo argues that the district court erred in applying the section 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) enhancement  because  the  government  failed  to  demonstrate  that  he  was  directly involved in importing cocaine into the United States.    He contends that because he was neither  physically  present  in  the  United  States  nor  “directly”  involved  in  smuggling cocaine  across  the  United  States  border,  section  2D1.1(b)(15)(C)  does  not  apply. Appellant’s Br. at 30—31.    We review “a district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo, while factual determinations underlying a district court’s Guidelines calculation are reviewed for clear error.”    United States v. Cramer, 777 F.3d 597, 601 (2d Cir. 2015).

Section 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) adds two levels to a defendant’s base offense level if (1) “the defendant receives an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role)”—an element that  is  not  in  dispute  here—and  (2)  “the  defendant  was  directly  involved  in  the importation of a controlled substance.”    U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C).    The accompanying commentary provides: “Subsection (b)(15)(C) applies if the defendant is accountable for the importation of a controlled substance under subsection (a)(1)(A) of § 1B1.3 . . . , i.e., the defendant committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused the importation of a controlled substance.”    Id. comment. (n.20(B)).

Arguing  against  the  application  of  this  enhancement,  Lobo  contends  that  the language of section 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) is unambiguous and yields only one interpretation— that an enhancement is warranted where a defendant who receives an Aggravating Role *9 adjustment  “either  himself  brought  controlled  substances  into  the  United  States  or induced another [to] do so, or secreted/transported such substances at some point after their  arrival  in  the  United  States  but  before  they  reached  their  final  destination.” Appellant’s Br. at 33.    He thus claims that we need not look to the commentary to resolve the  meaning  of  “directly  involved”  because  the  language  of  section  2D1.1(b)(15)(C)  is unambiguous.

We  disagree.    It  is  well  established  that  “the commentary is  binding  authority, unless it is inconsistent with the underlying guideline.”    United States v. Pedragh, 225 F.3d 240,  244  (2d  Cir.  2000)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    We  have  long  recognized that,  “[n]o  threshold  test  of  ambiguity  need  be  passed  before  the commentary can  be consulted,” and we will instead “construe the guideline and its commentary together and seek to harmonize them.”    Id. at 244—45.

With this principle in mind, there is no question that, at a minimum, Lobo “aided” and “abetted . . . the importation of” cocaine, regardless of whether he was physically present  in  the  United  States  or  personally  transported  cocaine  across  the  border. U.S.S.G.  § 2D1.1(b)(15)(C)  comment.  (n.20(B)).    Lobo  specifically  pleaded  guilty  to conspiracy  to  import  cocaine  into  the  United  States.    The  government’s  evidence demonstrated that Lobo participated directly in transporting hundreds of kilograms of cocaine from South America through Honduras for Mexican drug cartels to smuggle into *10 the United States.    This conduct clearly falls within the conduct identified by the text of the commentary when read in concert with the Guideline.

Lobo cites a number of unpublished decisions from our sister circuits and argues that “each involved defendants physically present in the United States and/or involved in an affirmative step related to the controlled substance crossing over the border of the United  States.”    Appellant’s  Br.  at  31.    None  of  these  decisions  confronted  the argument  Lobo  presents  before  this  Court,  and  none  foreclose  the  interpretation  of section 2D1.1(b)(15)(C) that the district court applied and that we uphold here.

Finally, we are not persuaded by Lobo’s argument that the government presented insufficient evidence that the cocaine at issue was ultimately imported into the United States.    At the Fatico hearing, Rivera Maradiaga testified that the Cachiros worked with Mexican drug cartels to smuggle drugs into the United States by transporting drugs from Colombia through Honduras into Guatemala.    J. App. 57 (“From Colombia it was sent to Honduras, from Honduras it was sent to Guatemala, from Guatemala it was sent to Mexico, and from Mexico to the United States.”).

Rivera  Maradiaga  also  explained  that  Lobo  was  not  a  passive  participant.    For example, in 2012, Lobo helped Rivera Maradiaga escort approximately 400 kilograms of cocaine  received  from  Colombian  drug  traffickers  via  a  landing  strip  in  the  Cortés Department of Honduras to San Pedro Sula, Honduras.    Lobo ensured the safe passage of the drugs by contacting the local police chief to prevent any police interference during *11 the transport.    In 2013, Lobo assembled a security team to assist Rivera Maradiaga in moving  approximately  1,000  kilograms  of  cocaine  from  Tocoa  Colón,  Honduras  to  La Entrada,  Honduras.    Lobo  used  three  SUVs  with  sirens  occupied  by  men  wearing military uniforms to escort the truck carrying the drugs.    At a police checkpoint, Lobo spoke with police officers so that the truck could pass through unimpeded.4    On these facts,  the  district  court  reasonably  concluded  that  the  government  established  by  a preponderance of the evidence that Lobo “aided [and] abetted . . . the importation of a controlled  substance”  into  the  United  States.    U.S.S.G.  §  2D1.1(b)(15)(C)  comment. (n.20(B)).    There was no error in its application of the importation Guideline.

We have considered Lobo’s arguments and find them to be without merit.    For the  foregoing  reasons,  and  those  stated  in  the  summary  order  filed  concurrently herewith, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

4 The Presentence Report (“PSR”) also identifies an incident when Lobo was paid $50,000 to introduce members of Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel to Honduran customs officials to facilitate the transport of hundreds of kilograms of cocaine bound for the United States through Honduras.