United States v. Candelaria.
No. 24-2108. 8/25/2025. D.N.M. Judge Bacharach. Bank Fraud—Bank Robbery—Consent to Car Search—Fourth Amendment—US Sentencing Guidelines.
August 25, 2025
In investigating a bank robbery, law enforcement officers searched a car used by Candelaria and his wife. In the car, the officers found a handwritten note with content similar to that of a note used in a recent bank robbery. The government used the handwritten note in Candelaria’s prosecution. At trial, Candelaria argued that the government needed a warrant to search the car. The district court concluded that Candelaria’s wife had mutual use and control over the car, and her consent was thus valid for the search. Candelaria was convicted of bank fraud and bank robbery. The US Sentencing Guideline range was 46 to 57 months, but Candelaria was sentenced to 312 months in prison based on his history and the circumstances surrounding the crimes.
On appeal, Candelaria argued that the car search was unlawful. The Tenth Circuit considered whether wife had either mutual use of the car through joint access or control over the car for most purposes. The couple was married, so the Tenth Circuit presumed that both spouses had joint control over the car and evaluated whether Candelaria rebutted that presumption. Here, wife testified that she had been the registered owner of the car, she had access to a car key, she had joint property in the car, and she had treated the car as a joint household expense with Candelaria. Accordingly, wife had control over the car for most purposes. Further, when the car was searched, the couple had separated, and police had seized and impounded the car. The impoundment lot owner stated that wife was the only person allowed to get the car because she was the registered owner, so Candelaria had apparently lost his control over the car at that time. Therefore, wife’s consent to the car search was valid, and the resulting search didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.
Candelaria also argued that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Here, the bank fraud involved the brutal beating of Candelaria’s father-in-law in his bed during the night. Candelaria had recently moved out of the father-in-law’s house. The father-in-law suffered four skull fractures and almost died as a result. The intruder knew where to find the father-in-law’s checks and ordered the father-in-law to sign a check for $23,000 and leave the payee’s line blank. Candelaria’s name was later inserted as the payee, and he obtained the $23,000 after endorsing the check and giving a bank teller a piece of paper stating that the robber was a cartel member and would kill the teller if he included a dye pack or pressed an alarm. Accordingly, the district court could reasonably infer Candelaria’s collusion in the attack and reasonably rely partly on the savagery of the attack and on the trauma experienced by bank tellers after Candelaria’s threats. Further, the district court could reasonably consider Candelaria’s previous acts of dishonesty, such as lying on an employment application, stealing at a former job, and conspiring to steal from his mother. Accordingly, the sentence was substantively reasonable. And the court examined the guideline range and considered unwarranted sentencing disparities, so it didn’t procedurally err in imposing the 26-year sentence.
The convictions and sentence were affirmed.