United States of America v. Jorge Armando Gonzalez

St. Louis, MO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine charge.

Jorge Armando Gonzalez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. At

sentencing, the district court1

determined that Gonzalez's total offense level was 33,

that his criminal history category was IV, and that his sentencing range under the U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines was 188 to 235 months' imprisonment. The district court

varied downward and sentenced Gonzalez to 168 months' imprisonment. Gonzalez

appeals, arguing that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Gonzalez contends that the district court gave insufficient weight to the nature

and circumstances of the offense. According to Gonzalez, a friend had given him

money for living expenses after the tragic death of Gonzalez's two-year-old daughter

in 2014 and later called on Gonzalez to repay the debt by transporting 4.1 kilograms

of methamphetamine into Minnesota in 2017. The district court adopted the

government's view of the case, however, and found that Gonzalez was a sophisticated

and experienced drug trafficker, "no matter how much [he] minimize[d]” his conduct.

The record supports the district court's finding. Gonzalez had been convicted of

methamphetamine distribution in 2006 and investigated for further distribution in

2009 and 2010. Gonzalez's cell phone contained photos of firearms and vacuumwrapped bricks of unknown substances, as well as text messages directing an

unknown individual to deposit $81,000 into certain bank accounts. We conclude that

the district court thus did not commit a clear error in judgment in deciding to accord

little or no weight to Gonzalez's explanation for his conduct. See United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that a district court

abuses its discretion when it considers only appropriate factors but commits a clear

error of judgment in weighing those factors). The sentence is not substantively

unreasonable.

The judgment is affirmed