Is 20 years too much?
By Gregg Wendorf
Advance News Journal
Does this federal sentencing story, courtesy of Federal Judge Micaela Alvarez, sound as strange to you as it does to me?
On one hand, you have a 33-year-old female San Juan resident who’s caught at the border in January 2023 trying to take 33 AK-47style rifles and three AR15s into war-torn Mexico, bloodied to the neck with cartel-related violence, along with two .45-caliber semi-autos and 39 magazines for good measure, and she is sentenced by Judge Alvarez this month to 46 months in prison followed by three years of supervised parole.
A search warrant later executed at her San Juan adobe uncovered 499 grams (17.6 ounces) of cocaine and more than $13,000 in bulk U.S. currency.
The woman, Jessica Alvarado, pled guilty Jan. 25, 2024, to smuggling goods from the U.S., and she admitted to dealing cocaine on several occasions.
Judge Alvarez allowed Alvarado to remain free on bond after sentencing, saying she will self-surrender at a later date, according to an April 18, 2024 press release published by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas.
Now, compare that sentence, 46 months, to that dished out to former Hidalgo County Commissioner A.C. Cuellar, Jr., in January 2023, 20 years, with 10 years supervised parole following his release, and something seems just a little bit off, considering that he’ll be approximately 97 years old when all is said and done.
Apparently, in Judge Micaela Alvarez’s court, looking at just these two cases, you’ll make out better if you’re caught with guns and drugs, trying to smuggle them into Mexico, as opposed to being found guilty of a white-collar crime, which is what sent Cuellar to the federal prison in Bastrop, Texas.
Given the fact that former Hidalgo County Commissioner A.C. Cuellar, Jr., was 69 when he was sentenced last year in federal court, and is 70 now, does the fact that he’s still looking at 16-plus more years in federal prison (time off for good behavior) seem like overkill?
It does to me, but, hey, I like the guy, and I still find it hard to believe that the feds successfully convinced a jury that a guy like A.C., already with plenty of money in the bank after years of hard work, would expose himself to criminal liabilities for only a paltry $1.4 million spread out over approximately 7.5 years.
This column can’t be long this week because I’m running out of time, but just type in “A.C. Cuellar convicted” into any online search engine, and the stories written about the case, including in The Advance, will pop up.
Basically, federal prosecutors and the FBI claimed that Cuellar took bribes worth $1.4 million spread out across 7.5 years and then funneled some of the money to his nephew, John Cuellar, a Weslaco city commissioner at the time, and another commissioner, Gerardo Tafolla, to award contracts worth approximately $39 million to two engineering firms, neither of which has ever been charged with any impropriety. At the time, the work had to do with rehabilitating Weslaco’s water treatment facilities.
In October 2022, A.C. Cuellar was convicted of 61 counts in total.
He remained free on bond until his sentencing in January 2023. At the time, Cuellar’s attorney told Judge Alvarez that his client had a medical procedure he needed to attend to, so could he get it done and then self-surrender to the U.S. Marshals at a later date.
Alvarez said, no, and had the Marshals take him into immediate custody, even though Cuellar had been out on bond already for approximately three years and had never missed a court date. If anything, he was no flight risk. Still, the medical procedure would have to wait, according to the judge.
One last thing before we skip to the auto accident – if A.C. Cuellar really did take money to bribe his nephew, former Weslaco City Commissioner John Cuellar, he wasn’t very good at “Breaking Bad,” one can argue, turning to crime, considering he paid out the alleged bribes by using several company checks, leaving behind a paper trail that flies in the face of “hide all the evidence.”
The Auto Accident
Cuellar’s attorneys have an appeal pending before the 5th Circuit (New Orleans), and oral arguments are expected to be heard this May.
Cuellar’s attorneys filed an appeal last August; the government responded, saying that oral arguments aren’t necessary because the Defense is mischaracterizing the record, and the “the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the Government’s brief and the record.” (Source: Brief of Plaintiff.)
One thing mentioned in the appeal is of some interest, I think, even if the U.S. Attorney’s Office says it’s of little interest in the grand scheme of things.
In the appeal filed by Cuellar, part of it reads: “A Judge Who Sues a Criminal Defendant and His Company for Money Damages Should Not Preside Over His Criminal Trial. Remaining on the Case After a Proper Motion to Recuse was An Abuse of Discretion.”
On March 16, 2015, Judge Micaela Alvarez initiated a civil action against J-III Trucking, a company owned by A.C., and served him individually. In this civil suit the judge claimed both physical and property damage from a vehicle accident and demanded “the total policy limits [$1 million] available to your insured or $500,000, whichever is greater.”
On March 21, 2016, the judge settled for $60,000, which was significantly less than originally demanded.
Given the suit and its outcome, A.C.’s attorneys filed a motion to recuse on the basis that Micaela Alvarez’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The judge denied the motion, “finding the litigation and surrounding circumstances did not warrant recusal.”
I looked up the case at the Hidalgo County District Clerk’s Office. There it is, filed April 8, 2015. Apparently, one of A.C.’s trucks (J-III Trucking Co.) being driven by a company employee at the time was accused of being grossly negligent behind the wheel, failing to yield the right of way, failed to avoid a collision with the judge’s vehicle, and as a result, “Plaintiff (Alvarez) suffered damages, for which she hereby sues.”
She was asking for no less than $200,000 and no more than $1 million.
In the end, she settled for $60,000.
Now is that accident going to harbor any ill will on the judge’s part as it relates to A.C. Cuellar during a criminal court proceeding and sentencing?
Think what you will, yay or nay, but that’s what Cuellar’s attorneys argued pre-trial, and it’s one of the things they have included in the appeal now before the 5th Circuit.
One thing I do know is sentencing a 69-year-old man to 20 years could well be a death sentence. Alvarez has to know that.
Obviously, friends and family hope that’s not the case, and they’re hoping to win an appeal, but only approximately 5 percent of males in the U.S. over the age of 65 make it to 90. (Source: CDC.)
Food for thought: It looks like, if you’re headed to Judge Micaela Alvarez’s federal courtroom in McAllen, you’ll do better in terms of sentencing if you’re caught trying to smuggle weapons into Mexico, AKs and ARs, dealing cocaine in the RGV than you will if you’re charged with a white-collar crime.
By the way, for federal crimes, inmates must serve 85 percent of their sentence before they’re eligible for release (good conduct time credit). So in the case of A.C. Cuellar, the 20 years would become 17. Meaning he’ll only be 86 when he comes home with 10 more years parole hanging over his head.
Some people will disagree, but to me, this sentence is a gross injustice.