United States v. Aguasvivas-Castillo
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 919
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Aguasvivas-Castillo owned AFMI and ABI and three NAP-certified supermarkets in Puerto Rico.
- A four-and-a-half-year conspiracy involved food stamp cash withdrawals beyond the 25% limit, with illicit profits of at least $4,440,744 and total government food stamp funds of $28,038,985.98.
- Aguasvivas-Castillo exercised control over store finances, cash flows, employment decisions, and received regular managerial reports.
- Indicted in 2007 for conspiracy to commit food stamp fraud and money laundering; convicted on all counts; asset forfeiture sought at $20 million.
- At sentencing, the court applied § 2S1.1 and related enhancements, imposed a $20 million forfeiture, and sentenced to 60 months for Count 1 and 108 months for Count 2, to be served concurrently; the court downwardly varied to 108 months on Count 2 and 60 on Count 1.
- The district court affirmed the $20 million forfeiture and upheld the two four-level enhancements (leader and laundering).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the laundering enhancement applies when the underlying offense was proven but its level was indeterminable. | Aguasvivas-Castillo argues § 2S1.1(b)(2)(C) should not apply since he was not in the business of laundering for others. | Court considered the totality of circumstances and applied the enhancement. | The court may apply the enhancement where the underlying loss is indeterminable; issue not clearly erroneous on appeal. |
| Whether the leader/organizer enhancement was correctly applied. | Aguasvivas-Castillo challenged the supervisory role. | District court found supervisory role supported by control over finances, reporting, and personnel. | Court affirmed the § 3B1.1(a) enhancement based on evidence of supervisory control over the conspiracy. |
| Whether the $20 million forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause. | Aguasvivas-Castillo contends the forfeiture deprives him of livelihood. | Forfeiture sustains under proportionality considerations given the fraud and money laundering. | Forfeiture stands; ratio supported by harm, statute scope, and commingling of funds; not grossly disproportional. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Levesque, 546 F.3d 78 (1st Cir.2008) (forfeiture excessive-fines future livelihood question; plain error not required if not raised)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1998) (gross disproportionality test for fines; factors to consider in excessiveness)
- United States v. Heldeman, 402 F.3d 220 (1st Cir.2005) (disproportionality factors for Excessive Fines Clause)
- United States v. McGauley, 279 F.3d 62 (1st Cir.2002) (commingled funds forfeiture; funds involved in the offense)
- United States v. Bornfield, 145 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir.1998) (forfeiture of legitimate and illegitimate funds commingled in account)
- United States v. Fogg, 666 F.3d 13 (1st Cir.2011) (plain-error review of forfeiture claims; undeveloped records)
- United States v. Ortiz-Cintrón, 461 F.3d 78 (1st Cir.2006) (remission authority for forfeiture hardship)