United States v. Fernando Alvarez-Carvajal, 2f4th688

Defendant Fernando Alvarez-Carvajal was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, marijuana, and heroin as part of an interstate trafficking ring; he served as a courier and his bank account was used to move proceeds.
At trial Alvarez‑Carvajal testified (through an interpreter) that he never stored or transported drugs and that money received from a cooperator was for legitimate help; cooperating witnesses and a forensic accountant contradicted him.
The PSR applied two two‑level enhancements: §2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for drug distribution (drug‑premises enhancement) and §3C1.1 for obstruction based on alleged false trial testimony.
The district court adopted both enhancements, yielding a Guidelines range of 360 months to life, but varied downward and imposed a 240‑month sentence after §3553(a) consideration.
On appeal Alvarez‑Carvajal argued the court failed to make independent factual findings required for both enhancements and that the evidence did not support them; the Seventh Circuit agreed the court omitted explicit findings but held any error harmless because the district court stated it would have imposed the same 240‑month sentence regardless of Guidelines calculations.
Concurring opinion warned against expansive application of the premises enhancement where home use was occasional, urging stricter adherence to the Guidelines commentary distinguishing primary/principal uses from incidental/collateral uses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement (perjury‑based) properly applied	Govt: Alvarez‑Carvajal testified untruthfully on multiple material matters; enhancement warranted	Alvarez‑Carvajal: jury made no perjury finding; testifying under oath cannot be punished absent required findings	Court: District failed to make required independent findings but any error harmless because court would have imposed the same 240‑month sentence after §3553(a) analysis
Whether §2D1.1(b)(12) drug‑premises enhancement properly applied	Govt: defendant owned home, regularly stored pound‑quantities of meth and funneled proceeds through it	Alvarez‑Carvajal: residence use was incidental—family home for 15 years, only occasional storage/sales	Court: District did not make explicit findings distinguishing primary vs incidental use but any error harmless for same reasons (sentence would be unchanged)

United States v. Clark, 906 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2018) (discussing harmless error at sentencing)
United States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2009) (government must show error did not affect sentence selection)
United States v. Elder, 900 F.3d 491 (7th Cir. 2018) (example of harmless error where court would have imposed same sentence)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (sentence choice can be reviewed independently of Guidelines range)
United States v. Chychula, 757 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2014) (when applying §3C1.1 for perjury, district court should find false testimony, materiality, and willfulness)
United States v. Contreras, 874 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. 2017) (interpreting §2D1.1(b)(12) and primary/principal use requirement)
United States v. Sanchez, 810 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2016) (application of premises enhancement where home regularly stored large quantities)
United States v. Winfield, 846 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 2017) (affirming premises enhancement in context of repeated home transactions)
United States v. Burke, 148 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1998) (best practice: sentencing findings should be detailed rather than cursory)