00-2647 U.S. v. Estrada

Listen to this article

“At base, the government’s arrangement with Varela can be characterized

as a problematic means of pursuing a drug case. During all of the

critical junctures of the case, from the initial investigatory stage, up

to and through the period in which Varela testified, he was motivated to

convict Estrada so that he would receive the much sought after and

elusive 25 percent commission. Such an incentive structure does little

to enhance overall confidence in the criminal justice system.

Notwithstanding, … there is such overwhelming evidence of Estrada’s

drug involvement that we conclude his sentence does not carry with it

the specter of a miscarriage of justice. “Although Estrada would like us

to accept that he only had enough money ($60,000 if one includes the

$25,000 found in the vehicle) at the most to purchase 3.75 kilograms of

cocaine, this story is not convincing. From the beginning, Estrada was

anxious to buy cocaine from Varela. Throughout the negotiation period,

Estrada remained focused on obtaining five kilograms of cocaine and for

good reason because he had sold this amount to someone else. Therefore,

it is more than likely that Estrada arrived at Hillside with the

intention of paying Varela for approximately three kilograms of cocaine

and obtaining the other two kilograms. This would ensure that he would

have the requisite amount he needed for resale. Varela could have

charged Estrada the higher price of $19,000 per kilogram and Estrada

would have had enough money to purchase three kilograms (total costing

$57,000) and still receive two kilograms on credit. Unquestionably,

Estrada was predisposed to purchasing the cocaine and more than capable

of buying at least five kilograms. … Therefore, no sentencing

entrapment occurred.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Conlon, J., Flaum, J.