United States v. Figueroa-Labrada
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13283
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Indictment in 2011 charged a meth distribution conspiracy in Oklahoma City; Figueroa-Labrada was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
- PSR attributed 746.19 grams of methamphetamine to Figueroa, totaling a base level 34 and a 151–188 month range.
- Trial evidence showed Figueroa participated in only three of eight conspiracy transactions, totaling 56.7 grams.
- Jury verdict form addressed quantity for each defendant; ambiguity existed whether there was one or multiple conspiracies.
- District court adopted the PSR’s attribution without making particularized findings on Figueroa’s joint undertaking or foreseeability.
- Sentence imposed was 120 months, below the top of the advisory range, with no explicit findings on relevant conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether the PSR’s eight-transaction amount was proper as relevant conduct | Figueroa | Figueroa | Reversed on the lack of particularized findings; remanded for resentencing |
| whether the district court failed to make particularized findings on jointly undertaken activity | Figueroa | Figueroa | Plain error; remand for resentencing with proper findings |
| whether forfeiture vs waiver affects review of lack of findings | Figueroa | United States | Forfeiture, not waiver; plain-error review applied |
| whether lack of particularized findings affected substantial rights | Figueroa | United States | Yes; likely a different, lighter range on remand |
| whether the error affected the fairness of proceedings | Figueroa | United States | Yes; materially longer sentence than likely with proper findings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Green, 175 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 1999) (requires particularized findings for jointly undertaken activity and foreseeability)
- United States v. Melton, 131 F.3d 1400 (10th Cir. 1997) (proper attribution requires analysis of the scope of the agreement in relation to the conspiracy)
- United States v. Sells, 477 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2009) (adoption of PSR findings still requires particularized findings; plain-error review if absent)
- United States v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 1996) (review of reliance on undisputed PSR when no objections; plain-error framework)
- United States v. Chee, 514 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2008) (waiver/forfeiture considerations when failure to object to findings; affects appeal)
- United States v. Mendoza, 543 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard requirements)
- United States v. Teague, 443 F.3d 1310 (10th Cir. 2006) (defines plain-error framework for sentencing)
- United States v. Cordery, 656 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2011) (illustrates impact of correct computation on sentence under plain-error)