United States v. Caballero
672 F. App'x 72
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Saul Caballero pleaded guilty to two drug-conspiracy counts (heroin ≥1 kg; methamphetamine ≥500 g) and faced a 10-year mandatory minimum.
- At plea/sentencing, the government sought a four-level role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, arguing Caballero was an organizer/leader.
- Caballero requested a Fatico hearing and asked the district court to submit the leadership-finding to a jury under Alleyne (arguing loss of safety-valve eligibility turns the leadership finding into an element).
- After a Fatico hearing, the district court found by a preponderance that Caballero was a manager/supervisor of the heroin conspiracy (but not the meth conspiracy), thus denying safety-valve relief.
- The court sentenced Caballero to 210 months’ imprisonment (bottom of the Guidelines range). Caballero appealed challenging (1) Alleyne-based Sixth Amendment error, (2) the factual finding of managerial role, and (3) substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial finding that precludes safety-valve relief must be submitted to a jury under Alleyne | Government: Alleyne does not require jury on this finding because denial of safety valve does not increase the statutory minimum. | Caballero: Denial of safety-valve relief effectively increases mandatory minimum, so leadership is an element that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. | Rejected Caballero. Court held safety-valve ineligibility does not increase the mandatory minimum and Alleyne is not implicated. |
| Whether district court clearly erred in finding Caballero a manager/supervisor under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) | N/A (government defended enhancement) | Caballero: Co-conspirators were experienced and did not need his direction; thus enhancement unwarranted. | Affirmed. Court reviewed factual findings for clear error and found the district court’s findings supported the § 3B1.1(b) enhancement. |
| Whether applying the role enhancement violated Sixth Amendment post-Alleyne/Harris | Government: Judicial fact-finding here does not aggravate punishment under Alleyne. | Caballero: Alleyne overruled Harris and requires jury findings for facts affecting mandatory minimums. | Rejected. Court explained safety-valve denial mitigates penalty context and does not aggravate the mandatory minimum; Holguin analysis remains persuasive. |
| Substantive reasonableness of 210-month sentence | Government: Sentence reasonable given risk of recidivism and public protection needs. | Caballero: Age, poor health, lack of record, deportation and short life-expectancy argue for leniency; sentence akin to life. | Affirmed. Court found district court’s explanation reasoned and within broad discretion; medical life-expectancy estimate not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum are elements requiring jury finding)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty must be treated as elements)
- United States v. Holguin, 436 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2006) (safety-valve mechanics: judicial findings do not trigger mandatory minimum)
- United States v. Hertular, 562 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard of review for § 3B1.1 role enhancements)
- United States v. Diamreyan, 684 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2012) (manager/supervisor inquiry: whether defendant exercised some degree of control)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive-reasonableness review)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (precedent on judicial fact-finding and mandatory minimums later overruled by Alleyne)