Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Danilo Martinez-Perez, 9 F.3d 118, 10th Cir. (1993)
United States v. Danilo Martinez-Perez, 9 F.3d 118, 10th Cir. (1993)
3d 118
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
further order.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance
in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R.
34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Mr. Martinez-Perez raises four issues on appeal. The first two are identical to
the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection and Eighth Amendment arguments
raised and decided in United States v. Angulo-Lopez regarding the sentencing
discrepancy between cocaine and cocaine base. In that case, we upheld the
Mr. Martinez-Perez argues that the only testimony supporting his possession of
a firearm is incredible as it comes from a drug dealer seeking leniency.
Evidence in the record supports the proposition that a gun was present during
drug transactions. Appellate courts do not pass on the credibility of witnesses.
Thus, we find no error in the sentencing court's factual determination that a gun
was present and was related to the offense for the purposes of 2D1.1.
10
11
12
The presentence report did not recommend an enhancement for the defendant's
role as a supervisor in the offense. The government, however, objected to this
determination and presented testimony of the investigator at the sentencing
hearing. The investigator in no uncertain terms testified that Mr. MartinezPerez acted as a supervisor after Teresa Griffin's arrest. Based on the
investigator's testimony and the court's recollection of the trial, the sentencing
court found Mr. Martinez-Perez was a manager or supervisor (but not an
organizer or leader) and since the criminal activity involved five or more
participants he increased the base offense by three levels pursuant to U.S.S.G.
3B1.1(b).
13
Mr. Martinez-Perez asserts that the evidence does not show that he was a
manager or supervisor. Without going any further, the investigating officer's
testimony alone provides ample evidence to support the sentencing court's
findings. Although some of the investigator's testimony was hearsay, it is well
established that reliable hearsay testimony may be considered at sentencing.
United States v. Roach, 978 F.2d 573, 576 (10th Cir. 1992). Moreover,
evidence that Mr. Martinez-Perez acted as a supervisor can be derived from the
testimony of the conspiracy participants given during trial.
14
This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or
used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing
the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.
R. 36.3
Mr. Martinez-Perez was one of fourteen defendants. For the related cases see
United States v. Angulo-Lopez, --- F.2d ---- (No. 92-6370) (10th Cir. Oct. 26,
1993)