United States v. Benito Lara, 56 F.4th 222

May 4, 2018 traffic stop led to arrest of Mauras ("Mamma") and disclosure by a cooperating source that Mauras obtained fentanyl from "Louie" (Santo Benito Lara).
Law enforcement attempted a staged 600‑gram buy on May 10 that failed; agents then conducted nine controlled buys (May–Sept. 2018) of fentanyl from Lara totaling over 400 grams (individual buys 30–100 g).
Lara and codefendant Nivar Baez were arrested Oct. 4, 2018; Lara was tried and convicted of conspiracy to distribute fentanyl; PSR objections reduced guideline adjustments but a 10‑year mandatory minimum applied.
Lara sought an equitable downward departure based on sentencing‑factor manipulation, claiming agents prolonged the investigation to reach the mandatory‑minimum threshold and overbore his will.
District court held an evidentiary sentencing hearing, credited DEA/TFO testimony about investigatory motives and methods, denied the departure, and imposed the 120‑month mandatory minimum.
First Circuit reviews for clear error and affirms the denial, finding no extraordinary government misconduct and sufficient evidence of Lara’s predisposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether agents acted with an improper investigative motive to enlarge the scope/scale of the crime	Gov't: investigation and repeated controlled buys were proper to gather evidence, identify participants, locate stash houses, and obtain warrants	Lara: agents knew he was a street‑level dealer after the failed buy bust but continued controlled buys to push him over the 400g mandatory‑minimum threshold	Court: No manipulation. District court credibly accepted agents' explanations; government acted in good faith.
Whether agents used excessive pressure to overbear Lara's will (lack of predisposition to large sales)	Gov't: Lara repeatedly sold large quantities (multiple 100g and 50g sales), showing predisposition; no overbearing	Lara: only predisposed to small sales; allegedly coerced by a boss (Perez) to provide drugs and remit proceeds	Court: Perez argument waived on appeal; predisposition supported by record (multiple large sales). No clear error; no downward departure.

United States v. Gibbens, 25 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1994) (defines burden and framework for sentencing‑factor manipulation claims)
United States v. Montoya, 62 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995) (explains "extraordinary misconduct" standard; manipulation claim for extreme cases)
United States v. Connell, 960 F.2d 191 (1st Cir. 1992) (authorizes excluding tainted transactions or departing for manipulation)
United States v. Jaca‑Nazario, 521 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2008) (deference to district court factfindings on government motive; role of predisposition)
United States v. Capelton, 350 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 2003) (government must act with malice or bad faith for manipulation to succeed)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (credibility‑based factual findings rarely clear error)