United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND JR. UNITED STATES DISTRTCT JUDGE
Defendant
Armando Solis (“Defendant”) pled guilty in 2007
to Conspiracy to Possess Methamphetamine with Intent to
Distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and
841(a)(1). He was subsequently sentenced to a term of 108
months imprisonment, and his 60-month term of supervised
release began on January 5, 2015.[1] On January 26, 2016, the
Court received a Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender
Under Supervision (“Petition”) seeking a warrant
for Defendant’s arrest and alleging that Defendant had
violated the conditions of his supervised release. ECF No.
99. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on June 30, 2016,
at which Defendant denied the charges set forth in the
Petition and the Government put on evidence in support
thereof. Upon consideration of the evidence before the Court
and the arguments of counsel, the Court SUSTAINS those
charges.
THE
PETITION
According
to the Petition, beginning in late 2013, the Drug Enforcement
Administration (“DEA”), along with state and
local law enforcement agencies, began investigating a Drug
Trafficking Organization (“DTO”) headed by one
Pedro Fuentes. Through the course of the investigation,
agents were able to identify several individuals associated
with the Fuentes DTO, one of which was Defendant. More
specifically, the Petition alleges that a number of phone
calls were intercepted on June 4, 2015, between Fuentes and
Defendant where the two men discussed the quantity and price
of methamphetamine Defendant would purchase from Fuentes.
They also agreed that Fuentes would deliver the drugs to
Defendant later that day. That same day at approximately 1:13
p.m., agents observed Fuentes arrive at Defendant’s
residence, where the two men exchanged items in the front
yard before Fuentes left. Less than two weeks later, on June
16, 2016, agents intercepted additional phone calls wherein
Defendant and Fuentes arranged an additional meeting so
Defendant could purchase another pound of methamphetamine
from Fuentes. Based on the above allegations, the Petition
sets forth four charges:
Charge 1 NEW LAW VIOLATION On or about June 4, 2015, through
June 16, 2015, the offender committed a violation of section
21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841(a)(1) -Conspiracy to Possess
Methamphetamine With Intent to Distribute, a Class A Felony.
This conduct is in violation of the mandatory condition
directing the offender not to commit another federal, state,
or local crime.
Charge 2 NEW LAW VIOLATION On or about June 4, 2015, the
offender committed a violation of section 21 U.S.C. §
843(b) - Unlawful Use of a Communication Device, a Class E
Felony. This conduct is in violation of the mandatory
condition directing the offender not to commit another
federal, state, or local crime.
Charge 3 NEW LAW VIOLATION On or about June 16, 2015, the
offender committed a violation of section 21 U.S.C. §
843(b) - Unlawful Use of a Communication Device, a Class E
Felony. This conduct is in violation of the mandatory
condition directing the offender not to commit another
federal, state, or local crime.
Charge 4 ASSOCIATION WITH PERSONS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY On or about June 4, 2015, through June 16, 2015, the
offender engaged in a series of telephone conversations with
Pedro Fuentes discussing the quality, amount and price of
methamphetamine he could purchase from Fuentes. They also
organized a meeting at the offender’s residence where
Fuentes supplied the offender with methamphetamine. This
conduct is in violation of standard condition number 9
directing the offender not to associate with persons engaged
in criminal activity.
ANALYSIS
Defendant
appeared before the Court on June 30, 2016, and denied the
above charges, after which the Government offered its
evidence in support thereof. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(3), in order to revoke a Defendant’s term of
supervised release, this Court must find by a preponderance
of the evidence that Defendant violated one of the conditions
of that release. See, e.g., United
States v. Verduzco, 330 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003);
Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700 (2000)
(“Although such violations often lead to
reimprisonment, the violative conduct need not be criminal
and need only be found by a judge under a preponderance of
the evidence standard, not by a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt.”).
In this
case, the Government offered the testimony of
Defendant’s Probation Officer, two detectives who had
served on an interagency task force investigating Fuentes,
and a DEA agent who was directly involved in intercepting the
phone calls between Fuentes and Defendant. Each of these
witnesses testified credibly, based on his or her personal
knowledge. The Probation Officer established that Defendant
resided with his parents at an address on Pear Street in Live
Oak, California. The detectives testified that, on June 4,
2015, as part of their surveillance of Fuentes, officers
followed him from Yuba City to Live Oak where Fuentes parked
at Defendant’s Pear Street address. Fuentes exited his
vehicle with a satchel and Defendant met him in front of the
house. The satchel is relevant because, as one of the
officers testified, whenever Fuentes was engaged in suspected
drug deals, he carried the same (or an identical) bag.
Moreover, the DEA agent testified that when they eventually
executed a number of search warrants as to the Fuentes DTO,
they uncovered a satchel similar to the one Fuentes wore to
meet Defendant, and it contained methamphetamine, cocaine,
and an electronic scale. The Government offered photographs
to corroborate the testimony regarding the meeting between
Defendant and Fuentes.
The
Government then put on testimony with regard to the
intercepted conversations between Defendant and Fuentes,
which support the conclusion that they were using telephones
to arrange a methamphetamine transaction. More specifically,
the DEA agent indicated that calls he intercepted on June 4,
2016, gave him reason to believe that Fuentes would be
engaging in a drug transaction, so he called one of the task
force detectives to advise that Fuentes should be followed.
Although Defendant and Fuentes spoke in “code, ”
the phrases they used were common to DTOs in general and to
the Fuentes DTO in particular, such that agents were familiar
with the terminology. For example, in one conversation,
Defendant advised Fuentes that a third party “was
getting upset [U/I] because the clothing was wet.” Gov.
Ex. B(3). Although seemingly innocuous, the DEA agent
testified that the word “wet” has a specific
meaning as it relates to methamphetamine trafficking and
references the perceived purity of the drug. In that same
conversation, Fuentes refers to “my aunt in the other
one . . . in the Mexican one.” Id., B(4). The
Fuentes DTO uses the word “Mexican” to refer to a
kilogram of cocaine, and it might refer to a pound quantity
as an “American.” This latter term came up in a
subsequent conversation intercepted on June 16, 2016:
FUENTES: Man, what are you going to need?
DEFENDANT: No, uh, you already know. What we talked about
...