United States v. Aguirre-Rivera, 8 F.4th 405

Aguirre‑Rivera was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥1 kilogram of heroin under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(i), and 846.
Jury received elements instruction including drug‑quantity elements and was given a verdict form with three questions: general verdict (Guilty), whether conspiracy involved ≥1 kg (Yes), and whether defendant knew or should have known the ≥1 kg scope (No).
Aguirre‑Rivera moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the special interrogatory contradicted the general guilty verdict; the district court denied the motion.
The PSR mistakenly treated the conviction as for ≥100 g heroin under § 841(b)(1)(B), producing a mandatory 5‑year minimum; the district court adopted the PSR and sentenced Aguirre‑Rivera to 60 months (near that mandatory minimum).
On appeal Aguirre‑Rivera challenged (1) denial of his judgment of acquittal motion and (2) the constitutionality of his sentence based on the jury’s special‑interrogatory finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury's negative answer to the knowledge‑of‑quantity special interrogatory undermines the general guilty verdict and requires acquittal	Quantity is not a formal element of the conspiracy; special interrogatory concerns sentencing only, so general verdict stands	Alleyne means quantity (which changes statutory punishment) is an element and failure to prove it requires acquittal	Affirmed: quantity is not a required element of the conspiracy conviction; the special answer affects only sentencing (no acquittal)
Whether the sentence was unconstitutional because the court applied an incorrect statutory mandatory minimum based on drug quantity not found for this defendant	Any error was harmless because the court would have imposed the same 60‑month sentence regardless	The jury negated the quantity enhancement, so no mandatory minimum applied; the court erroneously relied on inapplicable statutory minimum	Vacated sentence and remanded: court relied on wrong mandatory minimum and government failed to prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be found by a jury)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
United States v. Daniels, 723 F.3d 562 (5th Cir.) (drug quantity is not a formal element of conspiracy; failure to prove quantity affects sentence only)
United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160 (5th Cir.) (requirement that quantity be alleged and proved when used to enhance sentence)
United States v. Vargas‑Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.) (elements of drug conspiracy defined)
United States v. Haines, 803 F.3d 713 (5th Cir.) (quantity that affects mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282 (5th Cir.) (harmless‑error standard for sentencing errors)