US v. Pedro Oscar Dieguez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00020-FDW-DSC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999724203].. [15-4007]

Appeal: 15-4007

Doc: 49

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 15

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PEDRO OSCAR DIEGUEZ, a/k/a The Cuban,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00020-FDW-DSC-1)

Submitted:

December 18, 2015

Decided:

December 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter C. Anderson, BEVERIDGE
Carolina, for Appellant. Jill
Attorney, Anthony J. Enright,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for

& DIAMOND, PC, Charlotte, North
Westmoreland Rose, United States
Assistant United States Attorney,
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4007

Doc: 49

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 15

PER CURIAM:
Pedro Oscar Dieguez was convicted after a jury trial of
conspiracy

to

distribute

and

to

possess

with

intent

to

distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine and conspiracy to
launder funds.

He was sentenced to 400 months in prison.

He

appeals his convictions and sentence on numerous grounds.

We

affirm.
I.
Dieguez first contends that the jury was confused by the
unrelated and unreliable testimony regarding the various drug
transactions involved in his drug conspiracy.
that

the

Government

failed

to

paint

a

Dieguez asserts

picture

regarding

the

scope of the conspiracy or the interplay of the coconspirators.
However, in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do
not review the credibility of the witnesses, and we assume that
the fact finder resolved all contradictions in the testimony in
favor of the Government.
313 (4th Cir. 2002).

United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302,

Moreover, it is not necessary to prove the

identifiable organizational structure of a conspiracy.

In fact,

contemporary drug conspiracies are often “only a loosely-knit
association of members linked only by their mutual interest in
sustaining the overall enterprise of catering to the ultimate
demands

of

a

particular

drug

consumption

2

market.”

United

Appeal: 15-4007

Doc: 49

States v.

Filed: 12/23/2015

Banks,

10

F.3d

Pg: 3 of 15

1044,

1054

(4th

Cir.

1993).

Accordingly, Dieguez’s claim is without merit.
II.
Dieguez

next

contends

that

the

district

court

erred

in

failing to sua sponte instruct the jury regarding single versus
multiple

conspiracies.

Dieguez

asserts

that

the

Government

built their proof of conspiracy upon a flawed assumption that
all

of

the

cocaine

that

was

ever

dealt

by

the

cooperating

witnesses was automatically part of one large single conspiracy.
“In a conspiracy prosecution, a defendant may establish the
existence of a material variance by showing that the indictment
alleged a single conspiracy but that the government’s proof at
trial

established

conspiracies.”
Cir.

1994).

the

existence

of

multiple,

separate

United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876, 883 (4th
Because

Dieguez

failed

to

raise

the

issue

of

variance before the trial court, however, and the jury was not
instructed that they could find separate conspiracies, review is
limited to determining whether the trial court committed plain
error in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury that they could
find multiple conspiracies rather than the single one charged in
the

indictment.

(1985).
unless

“A
the

See

United

multiple
proof

at

States

conspiracy
trial

v.

Young,

instruction

demonstrates

that

470
is

U.S.
not

1,

15

required

appellants

were

involved only in ‘separate conspiracies unrelated to the overall
3

Appeal: 15-4007

Doc: 49

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 4 of 15

conspiracy charged in the indictment.’” Kennedy, 32 F.3d at 884
(quoting United States v. Castaneda-Cantu, 20 F.3d 1325, 1333
(5th Cir. 1994)).
A review of the evidence presented by the parties reveals
that

the

proof

conspiracies.
error,

in

which

trial

did

not

demonstrate

separate

Therefore, there was no variance, let alone plain

failing

conspiracies.
in

at

to

instruct

on

single

versus

multiple

The evidence presents a picture of one conspiracy
Maximiliano

Aguilar-Rodriguez

and

Juan

Diego

Aguilar-Preciado assisted Dieguez in obtaining large quantities
of cocaine from Mexico and distributing it to others for even
further

distribution

to

users.

Although

Dieguez

did

not

participate in all the transactions, there is no requirement
that every member must participate in every transaction to find
a single conspiracy. See United States v. Leavis, 853 F.2d 215,
218 (4th Cir. 1988).

The only testimony Dieguez refers to as

supporting his contention is Aguilar-Preciado’s testimony that
Dieguez wanted to work only with him and his uncle because other
drug dealers had not paid him.

However, the fact that Dieguez

wanted to work with limited people in his inner circle did not
negate

the

fact

that

his

suppliers

and

customers

all

worked

together over an extended period of time to sustain the needs of
the drug-buying public.

Therefore, the district court’s failure

4

Appeal: 15-4007

to

Doc: 49

give

a

Filed: 12/23/2015

multiple

Pg: 5 of 15

conspiracy

instruction

was

not

plainly

erroneous.
III.
Dieguez next contends that the district court improperly
permitted

the

Government

Aguilar-Rodriguez
“conspiracy.”

to

question

regarding

who

Aguilar-Preciado

was

involved

in

and
the

However, both of these witnesses had pled guilty

to conspiracy, and the jury was instructed that the Government
still

had

to

conspiracy.

prove
There

that
was

Dieguez

no

abuse

was
of

involved

discretion

in
in

the

same

permitting

these witnesses to state the charge to which they pled guilty
and with whom they conspired.
IV.
Dieguez next contends that the district court erred in its
calculation
sentencing

of

the

drug

purposes.

quantity

We

review

attributable
the

district

to

him

court’s

for
drug

quantity finding underlying its calculation of the base offense
level for clear error.
147

(4th

Cir.

2009).

United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125,
This

deferential

standard

of

review

requires reversal only if this court, upon review of the record
as a whole, “is left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.”

Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S.

234, 242 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).

5

Appeal: 15-4007

Doc: 49

Dieguez

Filed: 12/23/2015

argues

first

Pg: 6 of 15

that

the

Government’s

witnesses

at

trial, whose testimony formed the basis for the attributable
drug amount, lacked the necessary reliability based upon their
biases,

the

inconsistencies

in

their

testimony,

their

vague

estimates, the alleged fact that some of the drug transactions
were not related to the conspiracy at issue, and the lack of
corroboration.

However,

the

district

court

was

entitled

to

credit the testimony of Dieguez’s coconspirators, even if the
testimony

was

inconsistent

or

otherwise

questionable.

See

United States v. Wilson, 115 F.3d 1185, 1190 (4th Cir. 1997)
(explaining

that

the

uncorroborated

testimony

of

a

single

cooperating witness may be sufficient to uphold a conviction);
see also United States v. Sainz-Preciado, 566 F.3d 708, 713-14
(7th

Cir.

2009)

(holding

that

district

court

can

credit

testimony that is uncorroborated and comes from an admitted liar
or paid Government informant).
tied

to

well

over

150

Moreover, Dieguez was directly

kilograms

of

cocaine

by

specific

testimony, and Dieguez does not provide any specific evidence
that the witnesses’ estimates or recollections were incorrect
other than to contend that the witnesses were unreliable.

See

United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 210-11 (4th Cir. 1999)
(explaining that a defendant bears the burden of establishing
that information the district court relied on in calculating the
relevant drug quantity is incorrect); see also United States v.
6

Appeal: 15-4007

Doc: 49

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 7 of 15

Lamarr, 75 F.3d 964, 972-73 (4th Cir. 1996) (concluding that
approximation

of

drug

quantity

for

sentencing

not

clearly

erroneous if supported by competent record evidence, which can
include the contradictory testimony of a coconspirator).
Dieguez further avers that the estimates in the presentence
report (“PSR”) do not “make sense” given that Dieguez apparently
owed money to his suppliers and did not live beyond his means.
Given that the amounts at issue, Dieguez asserts that he would
have

netted

Dieguez

“millions

contends

that

and

millions

the

allegations

inconsistent with the facts.
without merit.

of

dollars,”
of

drug

and

thus,

quantity

are

We find that Dieguez’s argument is

First, while Dieguez apparently dealt with large

amounts of drugs and money, only a portion of that money would
be profit, and a lesser portion would be profit to him.
the

Government

presented

evidence

of

nearly

Second,

$200,000

in

unexplained cash deposits into one of Dieguez’s accounts over a
four year period.
Dieguez

spent

a

Third, the Government presented evidence that
substantial

amount

of

construction projects on his property.

money

on

ongoing

Accordingly, there was

no error in calculating the drug quantity.
V.
Dieguez

next

enhancing

his

Manual

3B1.1(a)

§

asserts

offense

that

level

(2013).

the

under
Under
7

district
U.S.

court

Sentencing

section

erred

in

Guidelines

3B1.1(a)

of

the

Appeal: 15-4007

Doc: 49

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 8 of 15

Guidelines, a defendant qualifies for a four-level enhancement
to his offense level if he “was an organizer or leader of a
criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was
otherwise extensive.”

USSG § 3B1.1(a).

The district court’s

determination that a defendant was an organizer or leader is a
factual

matter

reviewed

for

clear

error.

United

States

v.

Thorson, 633 F.3d 312, 317 (4th Cir. 2011).
Factors distinguishing a leadership or organizational role
from lesser roles include:
the exercise of decision making authority, the nature
of participation in the commission of the offense, the
recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a
larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of
participation in planning or organizing the offense,
the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the
degree of control and authority exercised over others.
USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4.

The commentary to the Guideline also

states that there can “be more than one person who qualifies as
a leader or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy.”
Id.

“Leadership over only one other participant is sufficient

as long as there is some control exercised.”

United States v.

Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 (4th Cir. 2003).
Dieguez
satisfied
commentary.

contends

any

of

the

that

there

factors

was

no

outlined

testimony
in

the

that

he

Guidelines

He also avers that the district court failed to

provide a sufficient analysis.

However, the trial testimony

showed that Dieguez had couriers, an accountant and an assistant
8

Appeal: 15-4007

Doc: 49

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 9 of 15

working with him in his drug business.

In addition, Dieguez

arranged for the transportation and sale of large quantities of
cocaine.

Further, as the district court explicitly noted, many

meetings

and

transactions

took

place

at

Dieguez’s

home.

Finally, Dieguez’s counsel admitted at sentencing that the trial
testimony

alone

was

sufficient

to

support

a

three-level

enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1(b) and, aside from denying his
involvement

altogether,

provided

factual allegations in the PSR.

no

evidence

undermining

the

Accordingly, we conclude that

the district court did not clearly err.

See United States v.

Terry,

1990)

916

F.2d

157,

162

(4th

Cir.

(stating

that

“defendant has an affirmative duty to make a showing that the
information
reasons

in

why

the
the

[PSR]
facts

is

unreliable,

contained

and

therein

articulate
are

the

untrue

or

inaccurate”).
VI.
Section
two-level

2D1.1(b)(1)

enhancement

of

“[i]f

the
a

Guidelines

dangerous

provides

weapon

for

a

(including

a

firearm) was possessed” in connection with the drug offense.
USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1).
weapons

enhancement

The commentary to § 2D1.1 explains that the
should

be

applied

“if

the

weapon

was

present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was
connected with the offense.” USSG § 2D1.1, cmt. n.11(A).

The

district court’s decision to apply the enhancement is reviewed
9

Appeal: 15-4007

Doc: 49

Filed: 12/23/2015

for clear error.

Pg: 10 of 15

United States v. Harris, 128 F.3d 850, 852

(4th Cir. 1997).
“[E]nhancement under Section 2D1.1(b)(1) does not require
proof of precisely concurrent acts, for example, gun in hand
while in the act of storing drugs, drugs in hand while in the
act

of

retrieving

a

gun.”

quotation marks omitted).

Id.

(alteration

and

internal

Instead, “possession of the weapon

during the commission of the offense is all that is needed to
invoke the enhancement.”

United States v. Apple, 962 F.2d 335,

338 (4th Cir. 1992); accord United States v. McAllister, 272
F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2001) (“In order to prove that a weapon
was present, the Government need show only that the weapon was
possessed
“[P]roof

during
of

sufficient,

the

relevant

constructive
and

the

illegal

possession

Government

is

drug

of

the

entitled

circumstantial evidence to carry its burden.”

activity.”).
[firearm]

is

to

on

rely

United States v.

Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 629 (4th Cir. 2010).
Dieguez admitted to possession of a .22 pistol found in a
bedroom

in

Dieguez’s

house.

Further,

the

PSR

stated

that

Dieguez made several inquiries regarding purchasing firearms due
to his outstanding drug debt and that he told Aguilar-Rodriguez
that he had, in fact, obtained a firearm.

In addition, a .45

handgun was found in a table near the entryway of Dieguez’s
house.

Further, Dieguez was seen shooting a rifle and a handgun
10

Appeal: 15-4007

Doc: 49

Filed: 12/23/2015

on his property.

Pg: 11 of 15

We find this evidence was sufficient to show

Dieguez’s possession of both firearms by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Cir.

See United States v. Lawing, 703 F.3d 229, 240 (4th

2012)

(explaining

that

constructive

possession

requires

showing of “ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband
itself

or

the

premises

.

.

.

in

which

the

contraband

is

concealed” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Once the Government establishes a defendant’s possession of
a firearm, the weapons enhancement is proper unless a connection
between that possession and the narcotics offense is “clearly
improbable.”

The defendant bears the burden of showing such a

clear improbability.

Manigan, 592 F.3d at 630-32 & n.8.

Dieguez contends that the firearm found in the bedroom was
a collector’s item and that neither the gun found in the bedroom
nor the handgun found in a table by the entrance of the home was
loaded.

He also notes that no drugs were found in the home.

However, the test requires nothing more than that the guns be
located in the same place where drugs are stored or distributed.
Harris, 128 F.3d at 852-53.

The record is replete with evidence

regarding drug transactions in Dieguez’s home.

Moreover, the

presence of the firearms, whether or not they were loaded, could
act as a deterrent to potential drug thieves and serve as a
security

measure.

Id.

(noting

increase the risk of violence).
11

that

unloaded

weapons

still

Dieguez did not claim that he

Appeal: 15-4007

Doc: 49

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 12 of 15

or anyone in his family used the guns for hunting or sport.
Because Dieguez had only a weak case to support his “clearly
improbable” theory and he possessed two firearms in his home
which was the site of numerous drug transactions, the district
court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement.

See

Manigan, 592 F.3d at 630 (noting that “a sentencing court might
reasonably infer, in the proper circumstances, that a handgun
seized from the residence of a drug trafficker was possessed in
connection with his drug activities”).
VII.
Dieguez next contends that his sentence was procedurally
unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the
sentencing disparities between his sentence and those of his
alleged coconspirators, who received sentences between 46 and
156 months.
disparities

However, although district courts are to consider
in

sentencing

when

imposing

a

sentence,

see

18

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (2012), we have expressed doubt whether “a
defendant may . . . challenge a sentence on the ground that a
co-conspirator

was

sentenced

differently.”

United

States

v.

Goff, 907 F.2d 1441, 1446-47 (4th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases),
superseded on other grounds by USSG app. C amend. 508; see also
United States v. Sierra-Villegas, 774 F.3d 1093, 1103 (6th Cir.
2014)

(“[T]he

district

court

may

consider

the

defendant’s

sentence in comparison with that of co-defendants at sentencing,
12

Appeal: 15-4007

Doc: 49

Filed: 12/23/2015

Pg: 13 of 15

but need not do so; it is a matter of discretion.”), cert.
denied,

136

primarily
differences

S.

at

Ct.

34

(2015).

eliminating

between

the

Section

national

sentences

3553(a)(6)

sentencing
of

is

aimed

inequity,

coconspirators.

not

United

States v. Withers, 100 F.3d 1142, 1149 (4th Cir. 1996); see also
United States v. Simmons, 501 F.3d 620, 623-24 (6th Cir. 2007)
(collecting cases).
Moreover, Dieguez did not specifically raise the issue of
sentencing disparity below, although the district court stated,
in

any

factors.

event,

that

Further,

similarly situated.

it

had

considered

Dieguez

and

his

all

of

the

sentencing

coconspirators

were

not

Accordingly, the district court did not err

in this regard.
VIII.
Finally,
substantively

Dieguez

asserts

unreasonable

that

given

his

that

400-month
he

was

a

sentence

is

non-violent,

first-time offender, with a strong work ethic and supportive
family background. We examine the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence under “the totality of the circumstances.”
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Gall v.

A sentence “within or

below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively
reasonable [on appeal].”

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d

295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).

The

defendant bears the burden to rebut this presumption “by showing
13

Appeal: 15-4007

that

Doc: 49

the

Filed: 12/23/2015

sentence

is

Pg: 14 of 15

unreasonable

. . . § 3553(a) factors.”

Id.

when

measured

against

the

In evaluating the sentence for

an abuse of discretion, this court “give[s] due deference to the
[d]istrict [c]ourt’s reasoned and reasonable decision that the
§ 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justified the sentence.”
552 U.S. at 59-60.
unreasonable,

even

We “can reverse a sentence only if it is
if

the

sentence

choice of the appellate court.”
722

F.3d

583,

590

Gall,

(4th

Cir.

would

not

have

been

the

United States v. Yooho Weon,

2013)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
Here, the district court expressly acknowledged Dieguez’s
lack of a criminal record and his work history.

And indeed, the

court did vary downward in Dieguez’s case from the Guidelines
range

of

life

requested.
leader

in

The

in

a

prison,
court

very

albeit

opined

not

that

large-scale

to

the

Dieguez

conspiracy

degree

was

a

that

he

high-level

involving

enormous

quantities of cocaine, not regularly seen by the district court.
The court noted the seriousness of the crime, and the necessity
to

deter

both

Dieguez’s

future

conduct

and

the

conduct

of

others.

The court balanced these considerations with those that

weighed

in

personal

favor

history

of
and

a

shorter

sentence,

such

characteristics—namely

his

as

Dieguez’s

clean

past

record, the fact that his obstruction enhancement might chill
the right to take the stand, and the need to encourage his good
14

Appeal: 15-4007

Doc: 49

Filed: 12/23/2015

behavior in prison.
positive

factors

substantial

Pg: 15 of 15

The court ultimately found that, while the
justified

sentence

a

below-Guidelines

nevertheless

was

sentence,

warranted.

a

After

considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that
Dieguez

has

not

rebutted

the

presumption

of

substantive

reasonableness accorded to his below-Guidelines sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

15