## Facts

- Two Colombian drug couriers, Maria Theresa Cordoba-Hincapie and Libardo Buelvas-Castro, were prosecuted in separate federal cases but addressed in a consolidated sentencing opinion.
- Cordoba-Hincapie arrived at JFK Airport from Colombia; an x-ray revealed swallowed balloons containing 772.8 grams of heroin.
- Cordoba-Hincapie pleaded guilty to a heroin importation offense under 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960; the plea structure avoided mandatory minimums once lab results showed the quantity was under one kilogram.
- At a sentencing *Fatico* hearing, Cordoba-Hincapie testified she was told the balloons contained cocaine, believed that representation, and made no further inquiry; the court found her account credible.
- Buelvas-Castro was similarly arrested as a low-level courier importing heroin and likewise credibly believed he was transporting cocaine.
- Both defendants knew they were importing an illegal controlled substance, but believed the drug type was cocaine rather than heroin; under the Sentencing Guidelines, heroin produced a higher offense level than cocaine.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Sentencing Guidelines, drug type may be treated as a strict-liability sentencing fact so that defendants are punished for the drug actually imported (heroin) despite a credible mistake of fact (belief it was cocaine).
2. Whether imposing the higher heroin-based guideline range without a culpable mental state as to drug type is consistent with the mens rea tradition and constitutional protections implicated when judicial factfinding drives substantially higher imprisonment.

## Decision

- The court sentenced the defendants based on the drug type they credibly believed they were importing (cocaine), not the drug actually imported (heroin).
- The court rejected applying the higher heroin guideline range where the defendants lacked knowledge, intent, or culpable indifference regarding heroin.
- The court treated the mistake of fact as materially limiting culpability for purposes of selecting the appropriate guideline benchmark.

## Legal Principles

- Sentencing under the Guidelines should generally track moral culpability; where an aggravating fact (here, drug type) drives materially greater punishment, the court should not impose the harsher range absent a culpable mental state tied to that aggravating fact.
- Traditional strict-liability doctrines are most defensible for minor regulatory offenses with light penalties; long imprisonment based on strict liability for a mistake about an aggravating fact raises serious due process and jury-trial concerns.
- A defendant’s knowledge that the item is a controlled substance may satisfy statutory mens rea for conviction, yet still be insufficient to justify guideline punishment calibrated to a more serious drug type when the defendant credibly and non-recklessly believed the drug was less serious.

## Conclusion

The court held that, at sentencing, drug couriers who knowingly imported a controlled substance but credibly believed it was cocaine could not be punished under the higher heroin guideline range absent culpable awareness (or culpable disregard) that the substance was heroin, and it imposed sentences using a cocaine-based guideline measure.


United States v. Cordoba-Hincapie, 825 F. Supp. 485 (E.D.N.Y. 1993)