Case 2:16-cr-00138-MSG Document 31 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

:
:

ANGEL CATALINO
IVOSTRAZA-TORRES

CRIMINAL NO. 16-138

GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

The United States of America, by its attorneys Zane David Memeger, United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Jerome M. Maiatico, Assistant United
States Attorney, respectfully files this sentencing memorandum regarding defendant Angel
Catalino Ivostraza-Torres.
I.

INTRODUCTION
The defendant is a convicted drug trafficker who was caught yet again distributing

cocaine on the streets of Philadelphia. This time, he was involved with a drug trafficking group
attempting to distribute nearly $100,000 worth of the illegal drug. Cocaine is a powerful and
sometimes deadly drug that has a high potential for abuse, and its distribution on the streets has
many social and human costs. For this defendant, history has shown that a series of relatively
short sentences in state court has done nothing to deter him from drug dealingindeed, the
lenient treatment seemed to have emboldened him and pushed him towards even more serious
drug crimes. Even after his guilty plea, the defendant has continued to minimize his conduct,
failing to reveal his own cocaine use. Now, the government is asking this Court to impose a
significant sentence of imprisonment that will send a message to this defendant and others that
such conduct will not be tolerated. Given his pattern of recidivism, as well as for the reasons

-1-

Case 2:16-cr-00138-MSG Document 31 Filed 12/15/16 Page 2 of 12

provided below, the government recommends a sentence within the advisory guideline range of
262 to 327 months in prison.
II.

BACKGROUND
On April 6, 2016, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against the defendant,

ANGEL CATALINO IVOSTRAZA-TORRES, charging him with one count of attempted

possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
846. On August 11, 2016, TORRES pleaded guilty to the sole charge in the indictment. There is
no plea agreement in this case. A sentencing hearing has been scheduled for December 22,
2016, at 10:00am, before the Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg.
III.

FACTS OF THE CASE 1

On March 8, 2016, Person #1 sent a parcel through the United States Postal Service from

Puerto Rico to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with fake names and/or nominees listed in the
delivery and return addresses. Inspectors with the United States Postal Service used a dog
trained in the detection of controlled substances to inspect the package, and the dog alerted to the
odor of illegal drugs in the mail parcel. Postal inspectors then obtained a search warrant and
opened the parcel, which contained an Epson printer box with an Epson printer inside of it, and
inside the printer was a vacuum sealed bag that contained approximately one kilogram of
cocaine. A laboratory report confirmed that the vacuum sealed bag held a mixture or substance
containing cocaine, and the net weight of the mixture or substance was 991 grams. The vacuum
sealed bag was black on one side and clear on the other, making the cocaine visible. Postal

These facts are undisputed, except that the defendant denies making a partial confession to law
enforcement on the night he was arrested. Whether or not the defendant made such a statement that night is
unimportant to the sentencing determination, because the defendant later accepted responsibility for his offense
through a timely guilty plea to the sole charge in the indictment.

-2-

Case 2:16-cr-00138-MSG Document 31 Filed 12/15/16 Page 3 of 12

inspectors removed the majority of the cocaine, leaving a sham substance and a small amount of
cocaine inside of the package, and then repackaged the mail parcel. Postal inspectors obtained a
tracking warrant and placed a GPS tracking device inside of the parcel, along with two alarms
which would alert law enforcement if and when the printer box or printer was opened. They also
sprayed the inside of the printer box with theft detection powder.
On March 9, 2016, postal inspectors conducted a controlled delivery of the mail parcel to
the delivery address listed on the parcel, Jesus M. Soto Rivera, 4151 O St., Philadelphia, PA
19124. At about 10:45 a.m., an undercover agent acting as a mailperson approached the
address and encountered Person #2 at that address. Person #2 showed the undercover an
identification card and stated he was Jesus M. Soto Rivera and that the mail parcel was for him.
Person #2 walked to a maroon Chevrolet SUV, which was occupied by two individuals, and
placed the mail parcel in the back passenger side of the vehicle. Law enforcement followed the
movement of the parcel by GPS and picked up surveillance of the vehicle in the 3300 block of
Lawrence Street in Philadelphia, where it was parked and no longer occupied by any individuals.
At about 6:14 p.m., the defendant Angel Catalino Ivostraza-Torres approached the vehicle,
entered through the drivers side, and exited approximately thirty seconds later with the Epson
printer box under his arm. The defendant walked down the street and entered the Finishline
Auto Detailing business, located at 3301 North 5th Street, by ducking under the garage door,
and then the garage door immediately closed.
At about 6:16 p.m., the first alarm was triggered alerting law enforcement that the Epson
printer box had been opened, and shortly thereafter, the second alarm was triggered indicating
that the actual printer had been opened. Once the alarms were triggered, law enforcement
converged on the business and maintained surveillance on both garage doors, which were the

-3-

Case 2:16-cr-00138-MSG Document 31 Filed 12/15/16 Page 4 of 12

only entrances/exits to the business. As the defendant exited through one of the garage doors, he
was stopped, and law enforcement found theft detection powder on his hands and shirt. The
defendant was placed under arrest.
Law enforcement continued surveillance on both garage doors and obtained the help of
the Philadelphia Fire Department in order to open a steel gate on one of the garage doors to make
entry into the business. About thirty minutes later, law enforcement entered the business and,
during a security sweep, observed the open Epson printer box with the printer sitting on a tool
case. The printer was unscrewed and the vacuum sealed bag was sitting next to the printer. The
vacuum sealed bag was the same bag that postal inspectors had previously repackaged inside the
printer, with the cocaine visible through the clear side of the bag. No other individuals, other
than the defendant, were observed entering or exiting the business, and no other individual was
found inside the business.
At about 6:55 p.m., after waiving his Miranda rights, the defendant began to answer
several questions from law enforcement. Among other questions, postal inspectors asked the
defendant how the drugs were placed beside the printer. The defendant responded that he had
been told by an unknown male to remove the drugs from the printer and place the package on the
tool case.
The maroon Chevrolet SUV used to transport the drugs was registered to Person #3.
Person #4 is the owner and sole proprietor of the Finishline Auto Detailing business. The
defendant is a friend and/or associate of Person #1, Person #2, Person #3, and Person #4. At the
time of the defendants arrest, postal inspectors recovered a cellular telephone from inside the
pocket of the defendant. During a search of the telephone, postal inspectors found about 69
calls, as well as numerous text messages, between the defendant and Person #4 on the day the

-4-

Case 2:16-cr-00138-MSG Document 31 Filed 12/15/16 Page 5 of 12

mail parcel was delivered and in the days before. The defendants telephone also contained a
video of Person #4 working on a motorcycle inside the Finishline Auto Detailing garage.
The total quantity of cocaine attributable to the defendant is 991 grams. The defendant
did not intend to possess this quantity of cocaine for his personal use; rather, he intended to
distribute the cocaine to another person or persons.
IV.

LEGAL STANDARD
This Court must follow a three-step process when sentencing a defendant: (1) calculate

the defendants guideline sentence, (2) formally rule on any departure motions and state how any
departure affects the defendant=s guideline calculation, and (3) exercise discretion by separately
considering the relevant factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) when setting the sentence.
United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006).
At the third step of the sentencing process, the Court must consider the advisory
guideline range along with all the pertinent 3553(a) factors in determining the final sentence.
The record must demonstrate the trial court gave meaningful consideration to the 3553(a)
factors. . . . [A] rote statement of the 3553(a) factors should not suffice if at sentencing either
the defendant or the prosecution properly raises a ground of recognized legal merit (provided it
has a factual basis) and the court fails to address it. United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324,
329-30 (3d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
The government explains below its view of the proper consideration in this case of the
advisory guideline range and of the 3553(a) factors, which support a guideline sentence of
imprisonment.

-5-

Case 2:16-cr-00138-MSG Document 31 Filed 12/15/16 Page 6 of 12

V.

SENTENCING CALCULATION
A.

Statutory Maximum Sentence

The following statutory maximum and mandatory minimum penalties apply to attempted
possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), where the defendant committed the instance offense after a prior
conviction for a felony drug offense: life imprisonment, a mandatory minimum 10 year term of
imprisonment, a mandatory minimum 8 years of supervised release up to a lifetime of supervised
release, a $8,000,000 fine, and a $100 special assessment. The government has filed an
information charging prior offenses, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 851, which provided the defendant
with notice of his prior convictions for the felony drug offenses.
B.

Sentencing Guidelines Calculation

The presentence report correctly calculates the defendants guideline range at 262 to 327
months in prison. The defendants offense level and criminal history category are controlled by
U.S.S.G. 4B1.1, the career offender guideline. The defendants criminal history category is
Category VI, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(b). The defendants offense level is 37, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(b)(1), because the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for this offense is
life. After subtracting 3 levels for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
3E1.1(a)&(b), the defendants total offense level is 34.
For the reasons described below, the government believes that a guideline sentence of
imprisonment is warranted given the defendants conduct and other sentencing factors.

-6-

Case 2:16-cr-00138-MSG Document 31 Filed 12/15/16 Page 7 of 12

VI.

GOVERNMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING SENTENCING

A.

Sentencing Factors

A thorough consideration of all of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)
suggests that a guideline sentence of imprisonment is an appropriate sentence in this case. The
Court must consider all of the sentencing considerations set forth in 3553(a). Those factors
include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to
promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need to afford
adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant; (4) the need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training, medical
care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (5) the guidelines and policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence
disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 18 U.S.C.
3553(a).
B.

Application

The relevant 3553(a) factors will be discussed in turn.

1.

The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

This was a serious offense. The defendant was caught red-handed delivering a package
that had contained 991 grams of cocaine. The approximate street value of that cocaine was
nearly $100,000. Cocaine is a powerful and sometimes deadly drug that has a high potential for
abuseand the cocaine that had been inside the defendants package appeared destined for the
streets of Philadelphia and surrounding communities. The defendant did not work alone; rather

-7-

Case 2:16-cr-00138-MSG Document 31 Filed 12/15/16 Page 8 of 12

he was part of a larger drug trafficking group that included Person #1, Person #2, Person #3, and
Person #4, all of whom were his friends and/or associates. About 90% of the cocaine powder
reaching the United States originates from Colombia before illegally crossing our borders. Drug
cartels control most of the trafficking into the U.S. and rely on drug trafficking groups within the
U.S., like the one in which the defendant was involved, to distribute and sell the drug on the
streets. See 2016 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary, DEA (November 2016),
available at https://www.dea.gov/resource-center/2016%20NDTA%20Summary.pdf. The
defendants involvement with the drug trafficking group in this case and his conduct in
attempting to distribute cocaine contributed to this global problem and, had his package not been
intercepted, would have posed a significant threat to public health and safety in the Philadelphia
area.
2.

The History and Characteristics of the Defendant

The defendant is a 53 year-old male from Puerto Rico who had been living with his
girlfriend and four children in Philadelphia at the time of his arrest. The defendant is not married
and has thirteen children from six prior relationships. He appears to have some high school
education and vocational skills and claimed to be self-employed. But instead of using his skills
to earn a legitimate income to support his large family, he has repeatedly tried to earn money by
trafficking drugs. He has used illegal drugs, including K2 (synthetic marijuana), as recently as
2013. And although he did not report a history of using cocaine, the defendant submitted a urine
sample to U.S. Pretrial Services after his arrest that tested positive for cocaine.
The defendant has a lengthy criminal history of drug trafficking convictions, which
includes convictions involving cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin stemming from local arrests in
2004 and 2005. These convictions cannot be characterized as youthful indiscretions as they

-8-

Case 2:16-cr-00138-MSG Document 31 Filed 12/15/16 Page 9 of 12

involved distribution-level quantities of illegal drugs and occurred when the defendant was in his
40s. Despite the multiple convictions, the defendant served only a few years in prison and his
parole expired in August 2013. The defendants pattern of criminal conduct has only escalated.
While his prior convictions involved gram-quantities, this case involved the defendant
attempting to deliver nearly a kilogram of illegal drugs. This history supports the need for a
significant sentence of imprisonment.
3.

The Need for Sentence Imposed to Reflect Seriousness of the Offense,

Promote Respect for Law, and Provide Just Punishment

There is a strong need to impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of these offenses,
promotes respect for U.S. laws, and provide just punishment. The Philadelphia region is plagued
by drug trafficking and is burdened by the social and human costs that flow from the trafficking
and abuse of these highly-addictive drugs. It is imperative, therefore, that the defendants
conduct be punished accordingly for attempting to introduce such significant quantities of these
drugs into the community. Moreover, even after his guilty plea, the defendant has continued to
minimize his conduct, failing to reveal his own drug use in an interview with U.S. Probation. It
is clear by the defendants own conduct that he has no respect for law enforcement authorities
and the laws of this country, and such conduct further supports a significant sentence of
imprisonment.
4.

The Need for Adequate Deterrence and Protection of Public

The need for adequate deterrence of this type of crime is great. Groups of drug
traffickers acting together pose a tremendous threat to society because there is great power that
lies in numbers, the ability to pool resources, and the ability to insulate and protect others in the
group from law enforcement. Given the prevelance of drug crimes in this region, the need to
deter others from similar crimes is especially important. For this defendant, history has shown
-9-

Case 2:16-cr-00138-MSG Document 31 Filed 12/15/16 Page 10 of 12

that a series of relatively short sentences in state court have done nothing to deter him from drug
dealingindeed, the lenient treatment seemed to have emboldened him and pushed him towards
even more serious drug crimes. A within-guidelines sentence will send a message to this
defendant and others that such conduct will not be tolerated. Furthermore, the recommended
sentence protects the public from further crimes by the defendant, for at least as long as he
remains in prison.
5.

The Need to Provide the Defendant with Training, Medical Care or

Correctional Treatment

There is no demonstrated need to adjust the sentence in order to provide the defendant
with needed educational or vocational training, medical care or additional treatment that cannot
be adequately addressed by the Bureau of Prisons during incarceration.
6.

The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities Among

Similarly Situated Defendants

Adherence to the recommended guideline range is the only course for assuring that the
defendants sentence is consistent with those imposed nationwide on similarly-situated
offenders. The governments recommendation of a within-guideline sentence is based in part on
the fact that such a sentence serves the vital goal of uniformity and fairness. Reference to the
sentencing guidelines, while carefully considering the 3553(a) factors particularly relevant to an
individual defendant, is the best available means of preventing the disfavored result of basing
sentences on the luck of the draw in judicial assignments.
7.

Restitution

There is no restitution in this case.

- 10 -

Case 2:16-cr-00138-MSG Document 31 Filed 12/15/16 Page 11 of 12

VII.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the government asks the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment

within the guideline range within the advisory guideline range of 262 to 327 months in prison.

Respectfully submitted,
ZANE DAVID MEMEGER
United States Attorney
/s/ Jerome M. Maiatico
Jerome M. Maiatico
Clare Putnam Pozos
Assistant United States Attorneys

Date: December 15, 2016

- 11 -

Case 2:16-cr-00138-MSG Document 31 Filed 12/15/16 Page 12 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Governments Sentencing
Memorandum has been served by ECF and electronic mail upon the following:
Maria Pedraza, Esquire
Federal Community Defender Office
601 Walnut Street
Suite 540 West
Philadelphia, PA 19106
maria_pedraza@fd.org

/s/ Jerome M. Maiatico

Jerome M. Maiatico
Assistant United States Attorney

Date: December 15, 2016