United States v. Aragon, 1:23-cr-01834

Defendant Isaiah Anthony Aragon was arrested after supplying over 30,000 fentanyl pills to a co-conspirator for a planned sale to an undercover officer.
Upon Aragon's arrest, law enforcement seized 31,160 fentanyl pills (weighing 3,217 grams) and $60,700 in cash (mostly in rubber-banded bundles) from his residence.
The government converted the seized cash into its fentanyl equivalent using a rate of $10 per gram, asserting that the cash proceeds were from drug sales.
The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) used both the seized pills and cash to calculate a total of 9,319.4 grams of fentanyl for sentencing under the Guidelines.
Aragon did not dispute the factual findings in the PSR but objected to the use of the seized cash in the drug quantity calculation, arguing insufficient proof that all cash was from drug sales.
The court had to resolve whether the cash-to-drugs conversion was supported by a preponderance of the evidence for sentencing purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether seized cash should be converted to fentanyl	Cash was proceeds of drug sales; conversion supported by evidence	Cash should not be converted; not proven to be from drug sales	Cash properly converted given lack of alternative explanation; PSR correct
Appropriate Guidelines offense level	Offense level 34 based on total fentanyl (pills + cash conversion)	Offense level should be 32, counting only pills	Offense level 34 appropriate; total drug quantity includes cash
Burden of proof for sentencing enhancements	Preponderance of evidence is sufficient	(No distinct argument on this issue)	Preponderance of evidence standard applies
Application of PSR findings	Findings should be accepted as facts since not disputed	Did not object to facts but disputes calculation basis	PSR facts accepted as findings under Rule 32

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (establishes that facts increasing statutory maximum must be proven to a jury beyond reasonable doubt, except for prior convictions)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (clarifies what constitutes a statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (sentencing guidelines advisory, not mandatory)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (extends Apprendi to facts raising mandatory minimums)
United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d 672 (10th Cir. 2005) (sentencing facts in Guidelines regime may be found by judge by preponderance of evidence)
United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019) (jury requirement for facts altering mandatory minimum or maximum sentence)
United States v. Olsen, 519 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2008) (preponderance of evidence standard for ordinary sentencing facts)
United States v. Yates, 22 F.3d 981 (10th Cir. 1994) (objections to PSR facts must cast doubt on accuracy)