United States v. Alfonso
21-20036
5th Cir.Mar 23, 2022Background
- Sandra Michelle Alfonso pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine; sentencing depended on the drug-quantity finding.
- Houston Police recovered 12 packages from her car; the packages weighed 6.12 kilograms including packaging.
- The PSR, based on police records and an agent interview, attributed at least 4.5 kilograms (actual) to Alfonso, yielding a base offense level 38 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1).
- Alfonso objected that the HPD scale might not have been calibrated, the packages were not thoroughly examined and included packaging weight or other contents, and thus the true actual methamphetamine weight was uncertain.
- A PSR addendum disclosed a confidential source report that the original deal was for 6 kilograms; the addendum was issued 38 days before sentencing.
- The district court adopted the PSR findings and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the quantity finding was not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of drug-quantity finding (clearly erroneous standard) | PSR and police investigation provide reliable basis for 4.5+ kg finding | Scale may have been faulty; weights included packaging so actual drug <4.5 kg | Finding not clearly erroneous; PSR reliable and Alfonso failed to rebut |
| Reliance on sampled lab tests / extrapolation | Court may extrapolate overall quantity from lab-tested samples | HPD did not thoroughly examine each package; extrapolation unreliable | Extrapolation permitted; sampling supports overall quantity finding |
| Use of confidential-source information disclosed in PSR addendum | Court may consider confidential-source info at sentencing; no confrontation right | Late disclosure violated due process / deprived defendant of confrontation | No confrontation right at sentencing; addendum timely (38 days); court properly relied on it |
| Burden to rebut PSR | PSR bears sufficient indicia of reliability; defendant must produce rebuttal evidence | Mere objections to PSR facts are sufficient rebuttal | Mere objections insufficient; Alfonso produced no competent rebuttal evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dinh, 920 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2019) (clearly erroneous standard and permitting extrapolation from sampled lab tests at sentencing)
- United States v. Rico, 864 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2017) (review standard: findings plausible in light of the whole record)
- United States v. Fuentes, 775 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2014) (PSR generally bears sufficient indicia of reliability for sentencing findings)
- United States v. Vela, 927 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1991) (PSR based on police investigation may be sufficiently reliable)
- United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2013) (defendant bears burden to show PSR inaccuracy)
- United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2013) (mere objections to PSR do not constitute competent rebuttal evidence)
- United States v. Johnson, 956 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2020) (timeliness considerations for PSR disclosures at sentencing)