United States v. Candelaria-Silva, 714 F.3d 651

Móisés Candelaria-Silva seeks a retroactive §3582(c)(2) sentence reduction after crack-guideline amendments; district court denied and this court remanded for explanation.
On remand, the district court again denied relief, relying on the ledgers and testimony to find heroin quantity was reasonably foreseeable to Moisés.
Ledgers (1990–1991) did not mention Moisés or Villa Evangelina; Moisés’s link to the ledgers and to the pre-1992 activities is weak or unproved.
Trial testimony showed Moisés may have led Villa Evangelina after 1993, but there is no record tying him to the 1990–1991 ledgers or the quantity calculations.
The court concluded a large conspiracy justified a base level of 38, but this relied on unreliable quantity calculations and lacked individualized showing of Moisés’s foreseeability; the appeal remands for proper analysis.
The court emphasizes the need for detailed support on both eligibility and the §3553(a) factors on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly determined drug quantity foreseeability.	Moisés argues ledgers and testimony do not show foreseeability; evidence lacks connection.	Government contends Moisés’ position in the conspiracy implies foreseeability of quantities.	Clear error; not supported by record.
Whether the drug-quantity calculation was reliable or clearly erroneous.	Quantities derived from flawed assumptions and inconsistent testimony.	District court could rely on extrapolations and averages.	Clearly erroneous calculation.
Whether the individualized drug-quantity finding was proper under §1B1.3 and First Circuit precedent.	Foreseeability must reflect Moisés’s specific role, not conspiracy-wide totals.	Evidence suffices to show Moisés’s involvement in large-scale distribution.	Record lacks support for individualized quantity foreseeability.
Whether to remand for consideration of §3553(a) factors after ruling on eligibility.	Even on remand, §3553(a) factors should be weighed.	Eligibility must be resolved before weighing §3553(a).	Remand for second-step consideration required.

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. ..., 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010) (establishes two-step §3582(c)(2) analysis; eligibility then §3553(a) factors)
United States v. Fanfan, 558 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2009) (review of § 3582(c)(2) decisions; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
United States v. Davis, 587 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2009) (similar standard of review for §3582(c)(2) proceedings)
United States v. Johnson, 569 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard of review and eligibility considerations)
United States v. Aponte-Guzmán, 696 F.3d 157 (1st Cir. 2012) (remand procedures and §3553(a) considerations)
United States v. Cardosa, 606 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2010) (eligibility on remand; what remains for district court to consider)
United States v. Correy, 570 F.3d 373 (1st Cir. 2009) (individualized drug quantity determination required)
United States v. Marrero-Ortiz, 160 F.3d 768 (1st Cir. 1998) (not based on hunch or intuition; reliability required)
Rivera-Maldonado v. United States, 194 F.3d 224 (1st Cir. 1999) (warns against pyramiding unreliable inferences in quantity)
United Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (clear error standard explained in review of factual findings)