United States v. Ayala, 991 F.3d 323

Ayala pleaded guilty (Feb 25, 2019) to conspiracy to distribute 40+ grams of fentanyl under a plea agreement that recommended a Guidelines Base Offense Level (BOL) of 28.
The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) attributed nearly 900 grams of fentanyl to Ayala, which yielded a BOL of 30; PSR also applied a 3-level leadership enhancement and a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, producing a Total Offense Level (TOL) of 30 and a Guidelines Sentencing Range (GSR) of 108–135 months.
Ayala objected that cash attributed to him was not "drug money" and produced documents (including 2013 benefits and life-insurance proceeds) to support legitimate-source explanations; the district court granted a continuance for further proof.
At resentencing the district court adopted the PSR's drug-quantity calculation, sentenced Ayala to 108 months (the bottom of the 108–135 range), and stated the 108-month sentence would be appropriate even under the lower BOL of 28.
On appeal Ayala argued (1) the drug-quantity finding lacked sufficient support and the court improperly adopted the PSR without independent findings, and (2) the sentencing judge exhibited bias; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Ayala's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of drug-quantity finding used to set BOL	Cash attributed to Ayala was not drug proceeds; PSR overstates quantity	PSR and supporting calculations justified attributing ~900g fentanyl and BOL 30	Any potential error was harmless because sentence did not depend on choice between BOL 28 or 30
District court adopting PSR without independent findings after objection	Court should have made independent findings rather than rely on PSR after Ayala's objection	Court may rely on PSR findings; here district court explained its sentencing reasoning	De novo review noted but unnecessary to decide on merits; harmless-error analysis controls because sentence independent of disputed finding
Prejudice under Molina‑Martinez from erroneous Guidelines calculation	Molina‑Martinez shows prejudice can exist even if sentence falls within the correct GSR	Court explicitly stated sentence was appropriate under either BOL, so no prejudice	Molina‑Martinez inapplicable where record shows court would have imposed same sentence irrespective of range
Judicial bias claim	A judge's comment to a nervous witness (“You want to tell me he is a swell guy”) shows bias	Remark was an attempt to put witness at ease; district court granted continuance and allowed defense to rebut PSR	No plain error or clear/obvious bias; statement viewed in context and insufficient to overturn sentence

United States v. Bernier, 660 F.3d 543 (1st Cir.) (standard of review for factual findings on drug quantity)
United States v. Murchison, 865 F.3d 23 (1st Cir.) (district-court duty to make independent findings when adopting PSR contested)
United States v. Tavares, 705 F.3d 4 (1st Cir.) (harmless-error analysis for Guidelines miscalculations)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Sup. Ct.) (Guidelines errors can be prejudicial even if sentence falls within correct range)
United States v. Marchena‑Silvestre, 802 F.3d 196 (1st Cir.) (clarifies when Guidelines-calculation errors are harmless)
United States v. Alphas, 785 F.3d 775 (1st Cir.) (examined whether district-court statement left open possibility of a lesser sentence)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for judicial-bias claims)