United States v. Alejandro-Montañez, 778 F.3d 352

DEA used a confidential informant (CI) to pose as a buyer and infiltrate a drug-trafficking operation led by Raúl Fora; CI negotiated large cocaine shipments in 2008 and early 2009.
Fora introduced CI to security and transport contacts, including Victor Esquilin-Rosa and later the defendants: Josué Alejandro-Montañez, Eddie Alejandro-Montañez (brothers), and Julio Severino-Batista.
After a six-month lull, CI resumed contact in Feb–Mar 2009; recorded calls and meetings discussed maritime receipt of cocaine (hundreds of kilograms), security, and firearms.
On March 16, 2009, defendants met at a pier to receive a shipment; DEA agents substituted fake cocaine, arrested participants, seized firearms from Eddie and from the Alejandro brothers’ vehicle.
Fora and Esquilin pled guilty; the three defendants went to trial, were convicted of the charged conspiracy, and received lengthy sentences (Alejandro brothers: 240 months; Severino: 192 months).
On appeal, defendants challenged sufficiency of the evidence as to a single overarching conspiracy, Alleyne-related jury findings on quantity, sentencing disparities, closure of voir dire, and a two-level firearm enhancement; the court affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing consideration under Amendment 782.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of conspiracy	Government: recorded calls, meetings, CI testimony, and arrest during receipt establish knowing agreement to import/distribute >5 kg	Defendants: evidence shows two separate conspiracies (2008 and 2009) separated by six months; they joined only the later conspiracy	Affirmed: totality of evidence supports a single continuing conspiracy or, at worst, a nonprejudicial variance; convictions stand
Jury finding of drug quantity (Alleyne)	Government: jury was properly instructed and found >5 kg beyond reasonable doubt on individual verdict forms	Defendants: court failed to have jury determine quantity as an element for each defendant	Affirmed: jury instructions and verdict forms satisfied Alleyne; no reversible error
Sentencing disparities under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)	Government: plea bargains explain lighter sentences for co-defendants who pled guilty	Defendants: disparity was unexplained and unreasonable	Affirmed: district court reasonably relied on plea agreements and other factors to justify disparities
Two-level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(1)	Government: firearms were present or foreseeable; enhancement proper based on preponderance	Defendants: enhancement improper where defendants were acquitted of firearm offenses or not charged	Affirmed: enhancement allowed for proven conduct by preponderance; factual findings not clearly erroneous

United States v. Adorno-Molina, 774 F.3d 116 (1st Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Ledee, 772 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2014) (elements of conspiracy)
United States v. Dellosantos, 649 F.3d 109 (1st Cir. 2011) (tacit agreement suffices for conspiracy)
United States v. Niemi, 579 F.3d 123 (1st Cir. 2009) (factors for single vs. multiple conspiracies)
United States v. Mangual-Santiago, 562 F.3d 411 (1st Cir. 2009) (jury’s single-conspiracy finding reviewed for sufficiency)
United States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2006) (acquitted conduct may support sentencing enhancement by preponderance)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (procedure for § 3582(c)(2) sentence reductions)
Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (plain-error standard requires prejudice)