United States v. Demers
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20568
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Ryan Demers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and distribution of oxycodone after admitting he purchased pills from several vendors over roughly two years.
- Investigations and statements: Demers admitted buying about 100–200 pills every other day recently; a supplier (Garcia) said Demers increased purchases to ~400–500 pills/week; suppliers corroborated substantial sales to Demers.
- PSI calculated a base offense level of 32, treating Demers as distributing ~200 30-mg oxycodone pills/week for 18 months; Demers disputed the time frame and sought exclusion of pills he consumed personally.
- District court declined to shorten the 18-month period, concluded Demers was not merely purchasing for personal use, reduced offense level to 30 to account for personal use, and set total offense level at 25, CHC I (GSR 57–71 months).
- Court imposed a concurrent 57-month sentence (bottom of the range). Demers appealed, arguing procedural error in drug-quantity calculation and substantive unreasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drug-quantity determination (procedural reasonableness) | Government: court reasonably approximated quantity based on admissions and conversions to marijuana-equivalents | Demers: calculation lacked individualized determination, wrongly used 18-month period, and failed to exclude pills he personally consumed | Affirmed: district court made individualized, reasonable approximation; 18-month timeline supported by Demers’ own statements; personal use need not be excluded when purchases reflect distribution knowledge |
| Conversion to guideline units (oxy to marijuana equivalents) | Government: applied Sentencing Guidelines conversion and derived base level appropriately | Demers: challenges implicit in conversion magnitude | Affirmed: conversion and resulting offense level were applied correctly and conservatively by the court |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Government: sentence justified by drug volume and need for deterrence and public protection | Demers: sentence substantively unreasonable; cites shorter sentence for supplier Johanna Núñez | Affirmed: sentence rests on plausible §3553(a) rationale, within properly calculated GSR, and disparity with Núñez explained by her one-level departure for family ties |
| Claim of "conspiracy of one" / charging decisions | Government: plea and factual basis bind Demers; charging choices for other defendants irrelevant | Demers: suppliers charged separately, so he was effectively a lone conspirator and should not be held responsible for their broader distribution | Rejected: plea admissions and record show participation in a conspiracy; charging decisions do not insulate him |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing review standards and abuse-of-discretion framework)
- United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (drug-trafficking sentences are quantity-driven)
- United States v. Platte, 577 F.3d 387 (sentencing court may make reasonable credibility judgments in quantity findings)
- United States v. Innamorati, 996 F.2d 456 (personal-use purchases may be counted in conspiracy quantity)
- United States v. Padilla-Galarza, 351 F.3d 594 (defendant bound by facts admitted at guilty plea)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (range of reasonable sentences and substantive-reasonableness standard)