United States v. Douglas Cerritos
706 F. App'x 113
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Douglas Duran Cerritos was convicted after a jury trial of murder in aid of racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) and sentenced to mandatory life without parole.
- Prosecution presented testimony (expert and former gang members) that Cerritos was a member of Park View Locos Salvatruchas (PVLS), a Northern Virginia MS-13 clique that functioned as an enterprise.
- Evidence showed PVLS raised money via dues and criminal activity (notably drug trafficking), wired funds to incarcerated members abroad, purchased weapons and drugs, maintained meetings, rules, hierarchy, rituals, and enforced discipline and violence.
- The government established that the PVLS’s criminal activities affected interstate commerce (drug dealing), and that PVLS acted against rivals.
- Witness testimony placed Cerritos in the planning and execution of the murder, showing knowing and voluntary participation rather than mere presence.
- Cerritos challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence on enterprise membership/commerce and his culpability, and argued his mandatory life sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency that PVLS was an enterprise affecting interstate commerce | Government: PVLS was an MS-13 enterprise that generated income via drug trafficking and other criminal conduct affecting interstate commerce | Cerritos: Evidence insufficient to prove enterprise status or effect on interstate commerce | Court: Sufficient evidence of enterprise indicia (hierarchy, rituals, meetings) and drug dealing affecting interstate commerce; element proven |
| Sufficiency that Cerritos knowingly participated in murder | Government: Testimony showed Cerritos helped plan and execute the murder, not a bystander | Cerritos: He was not a knowing participant; insufficient proof of intent/role | Court: Evidence established he knowingly and voluntarily participated in decision, planning, and execution; conviction stands |
| Eighth Amendment challenge to mandatory life without parole | Cerritos: Mandatory life without parole is cruel and unusual because court could not consider youth or lack of criminal history (relies on Miller) | Government: Miller applies only to offenders under 18; Cerritos was 18; sentencing court was not required to consider mitigating factors for mandatory life | Court: Miller inapplicable because defendant was 18; Harmelin permits mandatory life without courts being required to consider mitigating factors; sentence constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (enterprise definition and indicia)
- Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (criminal enterprise concept)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory life without parole unconstitutional for offenders under 18)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (mandatory life sentence and discretion to consider mitigating factors)
- United States v. Umana, 750 F.3d 320 (elements of murder in aid of racketeering under § 1959)
- United States v. Robinson, 855 F.3d 265 (standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Lopez, 860 F.3d 201 (drug dealing as activity affecting interstate commerce)