United States v. De La Cruz, 91 F.4th 550

James De La Cruz was indicted on charges of conspiracy to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, significant quantities of heroin and fentanyl after a DEA sting operation in Massachusetts.
He pleaded guilty to both counts after being caught arranging and participating in a drug transaction involving almost 10 kilograms of fentanyl and over 5 kilograms of heroin.
The District Court, after considering the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), found De La Cruz qualified for safety valve relief and applied sentencing reductions for acceptance of responsibility, leading to an advisory range of 108-135 months.
De La Cruz’s counsel argued for a lower sentence, noting his minimal role, lack of prior criminal history, family responsibilities, and the lower sentence given to his co-defendant.
The court imposed a 108-month sentence, noting De La Cruz’s management role and the extraordinary danger and quantity of fentanyl involved.
De La Cruz appealed, challenging only the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantive reasonableness of 108-month sentence	Sentence was excessive relative to crime, low risk, and lower co-defendant sentence	Sentence appropriate due to offense severity, leadership role, and danger	108-month sentence is substantively reasonable, affirmed
Sentencing disparity with co-defendant	De La Cruz and Roque had similar roles, should have similar sentences	De La Cruz was a manager; Roque was an employee/driver	No disparity error; defendants not similarly situated
Effect of drug quantity on sentence	Sentence excessive since quantity determined by others	Defendant is responsible for quantity involved in transaction	Quantity properly attributed given guilty plea and conduct
Deterrence and rehabilitation effect	Long sentence not needed for deterrence/rehabilitation	Sentencing statute requires court to consider deterrence	Court properly considered deterrence as a sentencing factor

United States v. Diaz-Serrano, 77 F.4th 41 (1st Cir. 2023) (sentencing fact-finding standard)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (deferential review for sentence reasonableness)
United States v. Heindenstrom, 946 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2019) (recognizing fentanyl's extreme danger for sentencing)
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (broad universe of reasonable sentencing outcomes)
United States v. Reyes-Gomez, 927 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2019) (abuse-of-discretion standard in sentencing)
Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (discretion in sentencing informed by judge’s experience)
United States v. Concepcion-Guliam, 62 F.4th 26 (1st Cir. 2023) (upholding 108-month sentence for fentanyl)
United States v. Carvajal, 85 F.4th 602 (1st Cir. 2023) (upholding 120-month fentanyl sentence with similar history)
United States v. Grullon, 996 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2021) (requiring identity in circumstances for sentencing disparity claims)
United States v. Bedini, 861 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2017) (disparity acceptable with differing Guidelines ranges)