United States of America v. Eduardo Yanez -Barrera

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued April 23, 2024
Decided April 29, 2024
Before
F RANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
M ICHAEL Y. S CUDDER , Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. K IRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2614
U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EDUARDO Y ANEZ -B ARRERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
No. 1:17-CR-00530(2)
John Robert Blakey,
Judge.
O R D E R
Eduardo Yanez-Barrera pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than five
kilograms of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §846. He conceded that he is accountable for at least 90
kilograms. The district court calculated a range of 151 to 188 months under the Sentenc-
ing Guidelines and imposed a sentence of 121 months. Yanez-Barrera insists that his
sentence is nonetheless too high.
His main appellate contention is that his guilty plea entitled him to a two-level
reduction for accepting responsibility. The district court ruled otherwise, given that,

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-2614 Page 2
after being apprehended, Yanez-Barrera fled to Mexico, where he remained for five
years. Under U.S.S.G. §3C1.1 this flight counts as obstruction of justice—and under
U.S.S.G. §3E1.1 Application Note 4 an enhancement for obstruction prevents a reduc-
tion for accepting responsibility in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
Yanez-Barrera maintains that the exception applies to him because he began to
assist authorities immediately after his apprehension, and that his assistance enabled
agents to find and prosecute at least one other drug dealer. Yet because Yanez-Barrera
fled, he was not available to testify during that person’s trial. Absence from the United
States negated much of the benefit from Yanez-Barrera’s assistance—though the judge
nonetheless rewarded his assistance after his return by finding him eligible for a “safety
valve” reduction in the minimum penalty and imposing a below-Guideline sentence.
No rule of law compelled the sentencing judge to give Yanez-Barrera greater benefit
from cooperation by allowing an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction despite the en-
hancement for obstructing justice. Appellate review is deferential, United States v. Major,
33 F.4th 370, 382 (7th Cir. 2022), and the judge did not commit clear error or abuse his
discretion by holding to the norm stated in Application Note 4. We have consistently af-
firmed decisions denying reductions in similar circumstances. See United States v. Pons,
795 F.3d 745, 746–47 (7th Cir. 2015); United States v. Munoz, 718 F.3d 726, 727, 731 (7th
Cir. 2013); United States v. Gonzalez, 608 F.3d 1001, 1007–09 (7th Cir. 2010); United States
v. King, 506 F.3d 532, 535–36 (7th Cir. 2007).
Yanez-Barrera also contends that, because he did not have any criminal-history
points, he should have received a two-level reduction in his offense score under
U.S.S.G. §4C1.1, which the Sentencing Commission recently had proposed and has since
put into force (it took effect on November 1, 2023). This goes nowhere, because the dis-
trict judge stated that he had taken this into account and was sentencing Yanez-Barrera
as if the proposed §4C1.1 were already in effect.
A FFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --