“Equal in the Venture” – Seventh Circuit Clarifies Translator-Participation Liability, Buyer–Seller Instructions, and Minor-Role Reductions in United States v. Sheldon Morales

1. Introduction

The consolidated appeal in United States v. Sheldon Morales & Eduardo Santana, Nos. 24-1682 & 24-1801 (7th Cir. Aug. 1 2025), arose from a sophisticated drug-distribution scheme operating in the Chicago metropolitan area shortly after Morales had been released from federal custody. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) intercepted calls revealing Morales’s renewed trafficking activities in concert with co-defendant Eduardo Santana, who often acted as a Spanish-to-English translator between Morales and Mexican suppliers. Following a jury conviction on conspiracy counts—and individual convictions and sentencing issues—the defendants raised multiple appellate challenges:

Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Santana’s conspiracy conviction;
Whether Santana was entitled to a two-level minor-role reduction at sentencing;
Whether Morales was entitled to a buyer–seller jury instruction; and
Whether Morales’s Sixth-Amendment right to counsel of choice was violated when the district court refused to appoint yet another lawyer.

Judge Brennan, writing for a unanimous panel that included Judges Easterbrook and Scudder, affirmed in toto. The opinion crystallises several doctrinal points within Seventh-Circuit jurisprudence, most notably:

A participant who linguistically “facilitates” a drug conspiracy can be deemed an equal conspirator when the evidence shows shared stake, planning input, and financial benefit;
A buyer–seller instruction is unnecessary where the evidence reveals a conspiracy on the same side of the transaction;
The minor-role reduction under USSG § 3B1.2(b) compares the defendant to the average participant in the same conspiracy, not to kingpins in other cases; and
A purported request for substitution of counsel, later expressly disavowed, does not trigger a Sixth-Amendment violation.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Seventh Circuit:

Sustained Santana’s conspiracy conviction, finding ample circumstantial evidence that he knowingly joined and advanced the illegal venture;
Affirmed denial of Santana’s minor-role reduction, holding the district court did not clearly err in viewing him as Morales’s “equal,” not a mere translator;
Rejected Morales’s request for a buyer–seller instruction, because the prosecution needed to prove conspiracy with any one person (here, Santana), rendering the instruction irrelevant and potentially confusing; and
Found no Sixth-Amendment breach where Morales (i) had already cycled through multiple attorneys, (ii) failed to raise his mailed motion at the hearing, and (iii) later disclaimed the motion as fraudulent.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Page, 123 F.4th 851 (7th Cir. 2024) (en banc) – Restated the doctrine that a mere buyer–seller relationship is insufficient to establish conspiracy. The panel relied on Page to catalogue factors—advice, warnings, expanded cooperation—showing Santana’s stake exceeded translation.
United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) – Quoted for the rule that § 846 does not require proof of an overt act; relevant in brushing aside Santana’s “no possession” argument.
United States v. Hidalgo-Sanchez, 29 F.4th 915 (7th Cir. 2022) & United States v. Johnson, 592 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010) – Cited for the proposition that advising or warning another trafficker can evidence conspiratorial agreement.
United States v. Velazquez, 772 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2014) – Framed the limits of counsel-of-choice, emphasising the court’s authority to balance defendant preference against docket and fairness concerns.
United States v. Guzman-Ramirez, 949 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2020) – Provided the three-factor summary for minor-role determinations (knowledge, planning input, financial gain).

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The opinion proceeds issue-by-issue:

Sufficiency of the Evidence (Santana)
Viewing trial evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the panel catalogued at least four “shared-interest” indicators: (i) Santana’s strategic advice to defraud suppliers; (ii) plans to become “the office of Chicago”; (iii) mutual warnings about police surveillance; and (iv) logistical acts (video of empty box) to ensure payment evasion. Together these transcended mere language translation, satisfying the knowledgeable agreement element of conspiracy.
Minor-Role Reduction
The district judge considered Santana’s functions relative to other conspirators in the same scheme. Despite Morales, the brokers, and “Omar” arguably holding loftier positions, Santana still exercised planning influence, had full situational awareness, and anticipated kilogram-level profit. Under the deferential clear-error standard, the appellate court upheld the denial.
Buyer–Seller Instruction
Morales’s proposed charge—diverging from the Seventh-Circuit pattern—was deemed inapposite. The conspiratorial relationship with Santana rendered any “mere purchase” theory irrelevant. An instruction that does not fit the evidence would confuse jurors and is properly withheld.
Counsel-of-Choice Claim
The panel reconstructed a meticulous timeline: Morales twice obtained new counsel, was warned that a third switch would be final, and later tacitly acquiesced to retaining Joseph Lopez after Lisa Lopez withdrew. Crucially, Morales filed (and did not repudiate) a “notice of improper and fraudulent filing” disclaiming the earlier replacement request. Because no genuine, outstanding motion existed, no Sixth-Amendment analysis was triggered.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

Translator Liability – The opinion cements that individuals whose primary function is linguistic facilitation may nevertheless be “equal participants” where they provide strategic input or share in profits. Investigators and prosecutors can now treat such translators as substantive targets, not peripheral witnesses.
Buyer–Seller Doctrine – Reiterates, with fresh factual illustration, that the doctrine has no application where conspirators occupy the same side of the drug trade. District courts may more confidently refuse the instruction when co-defendants jointly distribute.
Sentencing – Reinforces that minor-role determinations are highly fact-sensitive and defendant-specific. Defendants who merely contrast themselves with high-level cartel figures, rather than “average participants,” face an uphill battle.
Counsel-Management – Offers a blueprint for trial judges balancing orderly proceedings against serial substitution requests. Explicit warnings, documented hearings, and awareness of docketed motions create an appellate-proof record.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Buyer–Seller Relationship: A doctrine protecting ordinary purchasers from conspiracy liability when the sole link is a single sale. Evidence of shared planning, credit sales, profit-sharing, or advice removes this shield.
21 U.S.C. § 846 Conspiracy: Unlike some conspiracy statutes, § 846 does not require proof that any conspirator committed an overt act—agreement alone suffices.
Minor-Role Reduction (USSG § 3B1.2): A 2- to 4-level sentence decrease for defendants substantially less culpable than average participants. Courts weigh knowledge, planning input, and expected gain.
Structural Error: Certain constitutional errors (e.g., total deprivation of counsel) automatically mandate reversal without harmless-error analysis. The court concluded no such error occurred here.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Sheldon Morales fortifies three intertwined strands of Seventh-Circuit criminal doctrine. First, it underscores that ancillary roles—translators, drivers, logisticians—can sustain full conspiratorial liability when they share objectives and benefits. Second, it narrows the space for buyer–seller instructions, aligning jury guidance strictly with evidentiary realities. Third, it affirms the discretionary leeway trial courts possess in both sentencing role assessments and counsel-substitution management. Collectively, the decision offers prosecutors, defense counsel, and district judges a clarified roadmap for evaluating participation depth, jury instructions, and sentencing adjustments in narcotics conspiracies.