United States v. Aldwin Vega
18-3764
| 3rd Cir. | May 17, 2022Background
- Aldwin Vega was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute ≥1 kg of heroin and, based on a prior 2001 New Jersey conviction, faced a 20‑year statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
- The Government filed an information alleging Vega’s 2001 N.J. Stat. § 2C:35‑7 conviction qualified as a prior “felony drug offense.”
- At sentencing on December 14, 2018 (before the First Step Act change), the district court imposed 262 months’ imprisonment and applied a four‑level U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) leader/organizer enhancement.
- On appeal Vega raised three challenges for the first time: (1) his NJ conviction was not a qualifying “felony drug offense” because the NJ statute supposedly covered drugs (flunitrazepam, GHB, PCP), positional cocaine isomers, and hemp that § 802 does not cover; (2) the § 3B1.1(a) leader/organizer enhancement was improper; and (3) his within‑guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable.
- The Third Circuit reviewed the first issue for plain error, the guidelines enhancement for clear error, and substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion (with a presumption of reasonableness for within‑guidelines sentences).
Issues
| Issue | Vega's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vega’s 2001 NJ §2C:35‑7 conviction is a predicate “felony drug offense” for §841(b)(1)(A) because NJ allegedly criminalized (a) flunitrazepam/GHB/PCP, (b) positional cocaine isomers, and (c) hemp | Vega: NJ statute criminalized those substances so it is not categorically a §802 “felony drug offense,” so the 20‑year minimum shouldn’t apply | Gov’t: §802’s residual clause delegates to federal scheduling (21 C.F.R.), which covers those substances; no clear authority shows NJ criminalized positional isomers; hemp argument fails because federal de‑criminalization occurred after sentencing | No plain error; Vega failed to show controlling authority that §2C:35‑7 covered non‑§802 substances; hemp claim is time‑barred by later federal change |
| Whether the four‑level U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(a) leader/organizer enhancement was improperly applied | Vega: enhancement unwarranted | Gov’t: evidence showed Vega fronted heroin, was sole supplier to participants, and facilitated a hidden compartment to transport heroin | Not clear error; enhancement upheld |
| Whether the within‑guidelines 262‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Vega: sentencing court muddled predicate analysis; court relied on evidence the Government had agreed not to use in a co‑defendant’s proceeding; intervening statutory changes would have reduced the mandatory minimum | Gov’t: sentence was reasonable based on law and facts at sentencing; evidentiary/use challenges were not the proper vehicle at sentencing | Presumption of substantive reasonableness not rebutted; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dahl, 833 F.3d 345 (3d Cir. 2016) (plain‑error standard for new arguments raised on appeal)
- United States v. Aviles, 938 F.3d 503 (3d Cir. 2019) (discussion of NJ drug statutes in predicate‑offense context)
- United States v. Scott, 14 F.4th 190 (3d Cir. 2021) (requiring sufficient authority to show categorical mismatch)
- United States v. Thung Van Huynh, 884 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2018) (standard of review for §3B1.1(a) enhancements)
- United States v. Handerhan, 739 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2014) (presumption of substantive reasonableness for within‑guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Bogusz, 43 F.3d 82 (3d Cir. 1994) (discussion of cocaine isomers in criminal law context)
- State v. Cathcart, 589 A.2d 193 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991) (state court language about criminalizing multiple forms of cocaine)