United States v. Figueroa
647 F.3d 466
2d Cir.2011Background
- In February 2009, ~23,000 blue and white pills were found in defendants' vehicle; field tests suggested ecstasy and DEA lab verified the pills contained BZP with unmeasurable amounts of methamphetamine, MDMA, caffeine, procaine, and TFMPP.
- Some pills contained only BZP with unmeasurable MDMA and caffeine; after suppression issues, defendants pleaded guilty in January 2010 to possession with intent to distribute a mixture of MDMA, methamphetamine, and BZP under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846.
- Because BZP is not separately referenced in the Guidelines, Probation used the marijuana equivalency for the most closely related substance under § 2D1.1, cmt. n. 5, concluding BZP mimics MDMA.
- At sentencing, the government argued the BZP/TFMPP mixture is most closely related to MDMA; Figueroa argued BZP alone is not necessarily sufficient to mirror MDMA and sought an evidentiary hearing.
- The District Court denied an evidentiary hearing, adopted the PSR, and sentenced Figueroa to 63 months within the Guidelines range.
- On appeal, defendants contend the district court committed clearly erroneous fact-finding by concluding MDMA is the appropriate substitute for BZP under § 2D1.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is MDMA the correct substitute for BZP under § 2D1.1, cmt. n. 5? | Figueroa argues no, MDMA cannot be the substitute based on the record. | The United States argues MDMA is most closely related due to its effects and street use when paired with TFMPP. | Remanded for evidentiary hearing to determine the most closely related substance. |
| Was an evidentiary hearing required to resolve the mixture's composition and its proper substitute? | Record shows potential mischaracterization of the mixture; hearing necessary. | District Court's reliance on DEA reports suffices without a hearing. | Remand for evidentiary hearing to determine composition and appropriate substitute. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chowdhury, 639 F.3d 583 (2d Cir. 2011) (BDZ/BZP–TFMPP not clearly erroneous when determining MDMA substitute under § 2D1.1)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for substantive/procedural reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Johnson, 567 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2009) (reasonableness review requires both substantive and procedural analysis)
- United States v. Lenoci, 377 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2004) (remittance of sentencing considerations and appellate guidance in DRG contexts)