[DO NOT PUBLISH]
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
` FILED
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`________________________
`ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`FEB 28, 2011
`JOHN LEY
` CLERK
`
`No. 09-13787
`Non-Argument Calendar
`________________________
`
`D. C. Docket No. 08-00297-CR-T-26-MAP
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MARIA VALADEZ,
`
`
`Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
`versus
`
`Defendant-Appellant.
`
`________________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Middle District of Florida
`_________________________
`
`(February 28, 2011)
`
`Before BARKETT, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`After a jury trial, Maria Valadez appeals her 51-month total sentence for
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
` FILED
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`________________________
`ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`FEB 28, 2011
`JOHN LEY
` CLERK
`
`No. 09-13787
`Non-Argument Calendar
`________________________
`
`D. C. Docket No. 08-00297-CR-T-26-MAP
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MARIA VALADEZ,
`
`
`Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
`versus
`
`Defendant-Appellant.
`
`________________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Middle District of Florida
`_________________________
`
`(February 28, 2011)
`
`Before BARKETT, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`After a jury trial, Maria Valadez appeals her 51-month total sentence for
`
`
`
`transporting illegal aliens for profit, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii);
`
`immigration document fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a); sale of false
`
`social security cards, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(C); and conspiracy to
`
`commit all three offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Valadez’s sole
`
`argument on appeal is that the district court erred in imposing a four-level
`
`leader/organizer role enhancement. After review, we affirm.1
`
`Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), a defendant’s offense level is increased by four
`
`levels if “the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that
`
`involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive . . . .” U.S.S.G.
`
`§ 3B1.1(a). For the four-level enhancement to apply, the government must show
`
`that: (1) the defendant’s role rose to the level of being an organizer or leader; and
`
`(2) the conspiracy involved five or more people or was otherwise extensive.
`
`United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022, 1026 (11th Cir. 2009).
`
`On appeal, Valadez does not dispute that she was a leader or organizer in the
`
`migrant-worker conspiracy. Valadez contends that the conspiracy lacked the
`
`requisite five or more participants and that the government failed to prove that the
`
`We review for clear error a district court’s determination of the defendant’s role as an
`1
`organizer or leader. United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1331 (11th Cir. 2003). We will
`not find clear error unless “we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
`committed.” United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1177 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks
`omitted). Given that, at sentencing, Valadez objected to the application of the four-level
`leader/organizer enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), we reject the government’s argument that
`Valadez invited the alleged error.
`
`2
`
`
`
`conspiracy was “otherwise extensive.” Because we conclude that the government
`
`presented sufficient evidence that at least five people were involved in the
`
`conspiracy, we do not address whether the conspiracy was otherwise extensive.
`
`For purposes of counting the number of participants in the conspiracy, a
`
`“‘participant’ is a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the
`
`offense, but need not have been convicted.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.1; see also
`
`United States v. Njau, 386 F.3d 1039, 1041 (11th Cir. 2004) (concluding that the
`
`manner of certain individuals’ assistance in distributing counterfeit social security
`
`cards evidenced their knowledge of the scheme and made them “participants” for
`
`sentencing purposes). The defendant is included among the five participants.
`
`United States v. Holland, 22 F.3d 1040, 1045 (11th Cir. 1994).
`
`Here, the trial record and the undisputed facts in the Presentence
`
`Investigation Report (“PSI”) demonstrated that Valadez’s conspiracy involved at
`
`least five participants who knowingly engaged in illegal activities such that they
`
`could be held criminally responsible. In addition to Valadez herself, there was
`
`Jose Mendez, who assisted Valadez with multiple tasks, including meeting with
`
`illegal migrant workers, placing them in homes, driving them to work and
`
`collecting money; Freddy Ramos, who transported the illegal migrant workers; and
`
`Oscar Lopez-Cruz, who procured counterfeit identification documents for the
`
`3
`
`
`
`illegal migrant workers. The PSI identified a fifth individual, named “Rigo,” who
`
`also helped procure counterfeit documents.2
`
`Valadez argues that she never met one of the participants, Lopez-Cruz, the
`
`man to whom she sent migrant workers for fraudulent documents. The fact that
`
`some conspirators may not have known each other or Valadez directly is
`
`immaterial. See United States v. Taylor, 17 F.3d 333, 337 (11th Cir. 1994)
`
`(explaining that “[i]n finding a single conspiracy, there is no requirement that each
`
`conspirator participated in every transaction, knew the other conspirators, or knew
`
`the details of each venture making up the conspiracy”).
`
`United States v. Martinez, upon which Valadez relies, is distinguishable. In
`
`Martinez, the defendant pled guilty and disputed facts in the PSI for which the
`
`government did not present any evidence at the sentencing hearing. 584 F.3d at
`
`1024-25. Valadez, unlike the defendant in Martinez, proceeded to trial, where the
`
`government presented evidence of her role in the offense, and she testified on her
`
`own behalf. Valadez’s PSI, in turn, relied upon the trial evidence, and additional
`
`witness interviews, to support the leader/organizer enhancement. See United
`
`States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1355, 1356 (11th Cir. 1989) (explaining that sentencing
`
`Although on appeal Valadez challenges the inclusion of Rigo, she did not object to any
`2
`of the facts in the PSI that support his inclusion. Thus, Valadez admitted, for sentencing
`purposes, that Rigo was a co-conspirator. See United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 844 (11th
`Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 272 (2009)
`
`4
`
`
`
`court may rely upon evidence heard at trial, facts admitted in defendant’s guilty
`
`plea, undisputed statements in PSI or evidence presented at sentencing hearing).
`
`Further, Valadez did not object to the PSI’s factual statements.
`
`We find no merit to Valadez’s argument that the district court had a duty to
`
`make explicit findings as to the identity of the five participants. This Court has
`
`concluded that “[i]n making the ultimate determination of the defendant’s role in
`
`the offense, the sentencing judge has no duty to make any specific subsidiary
`
`factual findings. So long as the district court’s decision is supported by the record
`
`and the court clearly resolves any disputed factual issues, a simple statement of the
`
`district court’s conclusion is sufficient.” United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930,
`
`939 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (citations and emphasis omitted) (involving
`
`mitigating-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2).
`
`Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in applying the four-level
`
`leader/organizer role enhancement.
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`5
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
