United States v. Arturo Valdez
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 662
7th Cir.
2014

Background

  • Valdez pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin, admitting responsibility for 700 grams; plea informed him of a 5-year statutory minimum.
  • Police arrested Valdez carrying a shoebox containing ~500 grams; he had arranged to meet an informant who requested "China," a code word Valdez understood as a kilogram.
  • DEA agent summaries reported Valdez admitted selling one kilogram/week for two months and expected to sell a kilogram to the informant; the informant reported three prior 1-kg purchases.
  • For Guidelines purposes the government and probation attributed between 3–10 kg to Valdez, yielding a higher base offense level and a Guidelines range leading to a 140-month within-Guidelines sentence.
  • At sentencing Valdez denied making the DEA statements, objected to reliance on the hearsay summaries, argued the drug-quantity finding violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights under Alleyne, and argued quantity is an unreliable proxy for culpability.
  • The district court adopted the presentence report’s larger drug-quantity finding based on the agent summaries and corroborating facts; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Alleyne requires jury or beyond‑reasonable‑doubt proof of drug quantity used only to set an advisory Guidelines range Valdez: Alleyne means any fact that increases punishment must be treated as an element and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so Guidelines quantity determinations need jury/BRD Government: Alleyne does not convert Guideline factfinding into jury questions; district courts may find quantity for advisory Guidelines Court: Alleyne does not require jury/BRD for advisory Guidelines; no Booker/Alleyne conflict; claim foreclosed by circuit precedent (affirmed)
Whether district court erred by relying on unrecorded, unsworn DEA summaries (hearsay) to find drug quantity Valdez: DEA summaries and informant statements were unreliable hearsay without live testimony or recordings; clear error to rely on them Government: District court may rely on reliable hearsay at sentencing when corroborated Court: Statements were sufficiently reliable and corroborated; use of reliable hearsay at sentencing was permissible
Whether failure to address Valdez’s mitigation argument that quantity poorly correlates with culpability constituted procedural error Valdez: Court should have engaged his empirical challenge to using quantity as a primary measure of culpability Government: Judge need not rebut broad, sweeping attacks on a Guideline as a general matter Court: No procedural error; sentencing court need not engage sweeping challenges to a Guideline provision in detail
Whether district court believed it was constrained by a higher statutory minimum based on the higher quantity finding Valdez: Higher quantity finding would support a higher statutory minimum (10 years) and thus implicate Alleyne Government: District judge did not treat herself as bound by a higher statutory minimum Court: No indication judge thought statutory minimum higher; claim foreclosed by Hernandez

Key Cases Cited

  • Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum are elements requiring jury/BRD)
  • Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (mandatory Guidelines remedied by making Guidelines advisory)
  • United States v. Hernandez, 731 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2013) (Alleyne does not compel treating advisory Guideline factfinding as jury questions)
  • United States v. Claybrooks, 729 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2013) (district courts may calculate drug quantity for Guidelines without jury/BRD)
  • United States v. Mitchell, 635 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2011) (no BRD requirement for Guidelines factfinding)
  • United States v. Pira, 535 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2008) (similar holding on Guidelines factfinding and proof standard)
  • United States v. Vaughn, 722 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2013) (district court may rely on reliable hearsay when making Guidelines findings)
  • United States v. Maiden, 606 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 2010) (reliable hearsay permissible in sentencing findings)
  • United States v. Artley, 489 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2007) (corroboration can make hearsay reliable for quantity findings)
  • United States v. Corner, 598 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2010) (sentencing judge may disagree with Guidelines but is not obliged to)
  • United States v. Huffstatler, 571 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2009) (same)
  • United States v. Marin-Castano, 688 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2012) (sentencing court generally must address principal non-frivolous mitigation arguments)
  • United States v. Pulley, 601 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2010) (same)
  • United States v. Schmitz, 717 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2013) (sweeping attacks on Guideline provisions need not be addressed in detail)
  • United States v. Garthus, 652 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2011) (same)
  • United States v. Aguilar-Huerta, 576 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2009) (same)

AFFIRMED.

Read the full case