United States v. Diaz-Maldonado, 727 F.3d 130

Díaz-Maldonado, a Commonwealth corrections officer, was charged after participating in a FBI-staged drug deal under the Guard Shack operation.
Cotto, an FBI confidential informant, recruited Díaz and repeatedly discussed Díaz providing security for a street deal.
The operation culminated in a controlled apartment setup where a buyer presented two kilogram bricks of cocaine; Díaz and González protected the scene and the “owner.”
Quinones, an undercover FBI agent, posed as the drug buyer; Díaz’s actions included searching the buyer and removing the buyer’s cell phone.
Díaz was convicted on aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine and firearm possession, but acquitted on conspiracy; sentenced to 123 months, at the bottom of the guideline range and above the statutory minimum.
The district court denied an entrapment jury instruction and later addressed imperfect entrapment during sentencing; a written-judgment error regarding counts was identified, prompting a limited remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly denied an entrapment jury instruction	Díaz contends he proffered evidence supporting entrapment	Díaz argues government overreach and improper inducement occurred	No reversible error; evidence insufficient to raise entrapment issue; no entrapment instruction required
Whether the district court adequately considered imperfet entrapment at sentencing	Díaz asserts 3553(a) factors were not properly weighed	Court considered entrapment theory and found it inapplicable	Court adequately considered the issue; not a basis for relief
Whether the misstatement about conviction counts in the PSR and judgment affected Díaz’s sentence	Misstatement could mean sentencing for the wrong offense	Court was aware of the correct counts and the error was clerical	Plain-error review failed; sentence affirmed; remand to correct written judgment

Matthews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (standard for entrapment jury instruction due process)
United States v. Gamache, 156 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998) (two-part entrapment test; government overreaching scrutiny)
United States v. Rodriguez, 858 F.2d 809 (1st Cir. 1988) (initial burden to raise entrapment; deference to trial court)
United States v. Hershenow, 680 F.2d 847 (1st Cir. 1982) (opening statement entrapment ruling; harmless error)
United States v. Teleguz, 492 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2007) (entrapment; appellate review of defense viability)
United States v. Coady, 809 F.2d 119 (1st Cir. 1987) (entry-level burden of production for entrapment)
United States v. Vasco, 564 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2009) (overreaching standard in entrapment assessment)
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) (entrapment doctrine origins; government inducement)