United States v. Enrique Martinez Mathews
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21527
11th Cir.2017Background
- Martinez, a nurse in the Miami VA SICU, cared for a 76-year-old post‑op patient on Sept. 2, 2014; the patient’s vitals deteriorated and were intermittently unrecorded while Martinez was assigned solely to him.
- Martinez transferred the patient at ~5:00 p.m. without informing others of deterioration; the patient died the next morning.
- That evening Martinez edited the patient’s electronic chart to show stability and later added further entries; he admitted falsifying records to investigators.
- Indicted for damaging a protected computer system (18 U.S.C. § 1030) and falsifying records to impede an investigation (18 U.S.C. § 1519), Martinez pleaded guilty to both counts.
- The PSR applied increases under U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2(b)(3) (alteration of an essential/especially probative record), § 3A1.1(b)(1) (vulnerable‑victim), and § 3B1.3 (public trust); it also awarded a § 3E1.1 acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction.
- At sentencing the court applied the § 2J1.2(b)(3) and § 3A1.1 increases, declined to decide § 3E.1.1 because it (mistakenly) believed a positive drug test precluded the reduction as a matter of law, and imposed a 60‑month upwardly varied sentence; Martinez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Martinez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2J1.2(b)(3) applies for altering a substantial number of or an especially probative record | The altered medical chart was essential/especially probative to the VA’s death investigation; Martinez edited at least 43 data points | Only one patient record was affected; edits were to shield employment errors, not to alter essential evidence | Affirmed: § 2J1.2(b)(3)(B) applies — the Sept. 2 chart was an essential/especially probative record selected for alteration |
| Whether § 3A1.1(b)(1) vulnerable‑victim enhancement applies | Patient (76, post‑op in ICU) was unusually vulnerable and Martinez knew or should have known; his conduct potentially exposed the patient to harm | The United States, not the patient, was the real victim; Martinez did not target the patient based on vulnerability | Affirmed: victim was vulnerable; enhancement proper because defendant knew or should have known and conduct posed foreseeable risk |
| Whether the court erred in denying § 3E1.1 acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction | Drug use after arrest may be evidence against acceptance, but district court retains discretion to grant reduction | District court believed a single positive urinalysis categorically precluded the reduction | Reversed in part: remanded — district court erred in concluding it lacked authority to grant § 3E1.1; must reconsider reduction and resentence |
| Whether sentence was substantively unreasonable | Government argued guidelines + upward variance justified 60 months | Martinez argued enhancements and variance unreasonable | Not reached: remand for acceptance‑of‑responsibility decision; substantive reasonableness preserved for district court on resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (procedural and substantive sentencing review framework)
- United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491 (upholding § 2J1.2(b)(3)(A) application in immigration document context)
- United States v. Zats, 298 F.3d 182 (vulnerable‑victim scope)
- United States v. Birge, 830 F.3d 1229 (§ 3A1.1 targeting not required)
- United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (patients can be vulnerable victims absent proof of bodily injury)
- United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 943 (vulnerable‑victim application and relevant conduct)
- United States v. Wilson, 183 F.3d 1291 (error where district court wrongly believed it lacked authority to grant § 3E1.1)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (harmless‑error principles)