United States v. Calderon-Lozano
912 F.3d 644
1st Cir.2019Background
- Calderón-Lozano pled guilty to conspiracy to launder monetary instruments (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)) after participating in two undercover money deliveries totaling $180,000. He told HSI agents that his role was collecting drug-sale proceeds and delivering them for laundering.
- The PSR applied a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(1) for laundering drug-trafficking proceeds, producing an advisory range of 87–108 months initially; the district court later calculated a total offense level of 23 (with CHC I) yielding a 46–57 month guideline range.
- Calderón-Lozano did not object to the PSR’s factual statements or the six-level enhancement at the PSR stage and conceded at sentencing that his post-arrest statements supported the enhancement, though he sought a downward variance based on purported cooperation.
- The government argued the defendant declined to cooperate despite opportunities and that his post-arrest statements were not the basis for a cooperation-related variance.
- The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Calderón-Lozano knew or believed the funds were drug proceeds, expressly considered the § 3553(a) factors (including the post-arrest statements and the defendant’s refusal to formally cooperate), and imposed a low-end guideline sentence of 46 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the six-level § 2S1.1(b)(1) enhancement was erroneously applied | US: PSR facts and defendant’s admissions support the enhancement | Calderón-Lozano: enhancement not proven; challenged knowledge of drug proceeds | Court: Affirmed — uncontested PSR admissions sufficed to show knowledge by preponderance; plain-error review fails |
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by refusing a variance for alleged cooperation | US: No variance — statements were post-arrest, not formal cooperation; defendant declined to cooperate | Calderón-Lozano: court failed to consider his information and willingness to assist | Court: No procedural error — court considered § 3553(a) and weighed statements and refusal to cooperate |
| Whether the 46-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | US: Sentence within guideline range is appropriate | Calderón-Lozano: low-end guideline still greater than necessary given mitigation | Court: Substantively reasonable — plausible rationale, low-end guideline sentence gets presumption of reasonableness |
| Standard of review for unpreserved challenge to guideline calculation | US: Plain-error review applies | Calderón-Lozano: (argued but did not preserve) | Court: Plain-error review applies; no plain error found |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. González, 857 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2017) (district court may rely on uncontested PSR facts)
- United States v. Dixon, 449 F.3d 194 (1st Cir. 2006) (preponderance standard for sentencing factfinding)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (requirement of plausible sentencing rationale)
- United States v. Llanos-Falero, 847 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2017) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)