Leniency for Smugglers’ ‘Mules’ Upheld

In a decision with broad ramifications for drug suspects, a federal appeals court on Wednesday affirmed an Arizona judge’s decision to give a lighter than normal sentence to two Mexicans who played a minor role in drug deals along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the role played by drug couriers--so-called “mules”--may constitute a mitigating circumstance when calculating the length of a sentence.

If the decision is upheld, criminal law experts said, it could lead to reduced sentences for numerous small-fry defendants in drug cases in nine Western states, including California.

Luis Armando Valdez Gonzalez and Victor Arguelles Rodriguez, who lived in Mexico near the Arizona border, had been solicited by a stranger to drive a car carrying marijuana from one city to another in Arizona.

Valdez, a father of four who earned a living selling clothes out of the back of a truck in Sonora, Mexico, was offered $2,000 for his services and Arguelles, a poor laborer, was offered $1,000.

Both men were caught in Arizona and pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana. Neither had a criminal record in the United States or Mexico.

U.S. District Judge Alfred C. Marquez in Tucson sentenced Valdez to eight months in prison and Arguelles to 15 months. The sentences called for in federal guidelines range from 41 to 51 months. Both men also were sentenced to three years of supervised release after prison.

In handing out the lighter sentences, the judge specifically referred to the conditions along the border “where these people are starving to death, and being offered all kinds of money to drive a car across the border, or take it somewhere.”

The appeals court, in a 2-1 decision, agreed with Marquez’s analysis that the U.S. Sentencing Commission did not take into consideration the limited role played by “mules” when it wrote the sentencing guidelines that took effect in 1987.

“Mules along the Mexican border are . . . even less involved in the overall drug business and (have) less to gain from the success of the drug enterprise than ordinary underlings in conspiracy cases,” wrote Judge Thomas Tang, whose majority opinion was joined by Judge William A. Norris. “This is a peculiar condition that the (U.S.) Sentencing Commission did not address in its deliberations.”

Federal sentencing guidelines provide that a judge can reduce a sentence after taking account of a defendant’s role in a crime. However, the appeals court noted that a normal downward adjustment “was not available to Valdez and Arguelles because they were the sole participants in the offenses to which they pleaded guilty.”

Appeals Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez dissented, saying that Marquez had impermissibly relied on “a socioeconomic status claim that the conditions which exist along the Mexican border induce people to commit crimes.” He said the sentencing guidelines specifically prohibit consideration of a defendant’s economic status in imposing a sentence.

Jacqueline Marshall, a Tucson attorney who represented Valdez, said she was “surprised and pleased” by the decision. She said Valdez and Arguelles had served their terms and returned to Mexico.

Daniel Knauss, chief assistant U.S. attorney in Tucson, declined to comment.

Loyola University law professor Laurie Levinson said the decision would have a dramatic impact if upheld. She said the ruling reflected the fact that many judges are disturbed by the constraints imposed on them by the sentencing guidelines.