United States v. Figaro-Benjamin, 100 F.4th 294

Maximiliano Fígaro-Benjamín was involved in a multi-defendant drug trafficking conspiracy, acting as a captain of the vessel Black Wolfpack, which transported cocaine between Puerto Rico and St. Thomas.
Fígaro-Benjamín pleaded guilty to charges involving conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and conspiracy to import controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, 952, 960, and 963.
At sentencing, the district court relied on the testimony of a cooperating coconspirator, Resto, given at the trial of two other codefendants, as well as evidence from the PSR.
The district court attributed Fígaro-Benjamín with trafficking 267 kilograms of cocaine, found he was a supervisor in the operation, and imposed a 292-month sentence.
Fígaro-Benjamín appealed, alleging procedural errors in how sentencing evidence was considered, drug quantity attributed, supervisory enhancement applied, and that the sentencing explanation was inadequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of Trial Testimony at Sentencing	Consideration of Resto’s trial testimony violated Sixth Amendment and due process; lacked reliability and notice.	No confrontation right at sentencing; evidence was reliable and plaintiff had sufficient notice.	No error: no confrontation right at sentencing; testimony reliable; adequate notice and chance to respond.
Drug Quantity Calculation	Not enough evidence for 267 kg; only responsible for 132 kg physically seized.	Testimony and corroborating evidence support 267 kg; physical seizure not required for sentencing calculations.	No clear error; court properly considered reliable testimony and evidence supporting 267 kg.
Supervisor Role Enhancement	No evidence Fígaro was a supervisor; merely followed orders.	Evidence shows Fígaro exercised minimal control over others; met low bar for supervisor enhancement.	No clear error; record supports application of the supervisor enhancement.
Adequacy of Sentencing Explanation	Sentence not adequately explained, especially drug quantity responsibility.	Court sufficiently articulated main reasons for sentence and factors considered.	No plain error; sentencing explanation adequate for within-guidelines sentence.

United States v. Sandoval, 6 F.4th 63 (1st Cir. 2021) (discussion of confrontation rights at sentencing)
United States v. Rondón-García, 886 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2018) (confrontation clause and due process at sentencing)
United States v. Berrios-Miranda, 919 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2019) (sentencing court’s reliance on reliable evidence)
United States v. Cintrón-Echautegui, 604 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (drug quantity determinations at sentencing)
United States v. McKinney, 5 F.4th 104 (1st Cir. 2021) (standard for supervisor enhancement)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (standards for adequacy of sentencing explanation)
United States v. Ubiles-Rosario, 867 F.3d 277 (1st Cir. 2017) (adequacy of sentencing explanations)