United States v. Genero Perez-Alonso
682 F. App'x 732
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Perez-Alonso pled guilty to multiple drug offenses (conspiracy and distributions of methamphetamine and cocaine) and received a 120‑month sentence.
- The district court applied a two‑level U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) firearm enhancement based primarily on hearsay statements by co‑conspirator Noel Norato‑Perez.
- Officers found firearms in Perez‑Alonso’s home at arrest, but no drugs were recovered there and the presentence report recorded drug deliveries occurring at locations other than his residence.
- The probation officer did not recommend the firearm enhancement because there was no evidence drugs were sold from the residence.
- The district court concluded the firearm enhancement applied and that safety‑valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) was thereby foreclosed; the court did not perform the safety‑valve factual analysis.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the enhancement was improperly based solely on unreliable, uncorroborated hearsay, and that applying the enhancement did not automatically bar safety‑valve relief; it vacated and remanded for further findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Perez‑Alonso) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2D1.1(b)(1) firearm enhancement was properly applied | Norato‑Perez’s hearsay was unreliable, uncorroborated, and Perez‑Alonso had no chance to rebut; enhancement improper | Government relied on co‑conspirator’s statements that linked the guns to the drug offense | Court: Enhancement improperly applied based solely on uncorroborated hearsay; remand for further findings on reliability |
| Whether receipt of the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement automatically precludes § 3553(f) safety‑valve relief | Safety‑valve was wrongly denied; Perez‑Alonso should have been allowed to prove he did not possess weapons in connection with the offense | Government treated enhancement as dispositive of § 3553(f)(2) and opposed relief | Court: Enhancement does not automatically bar safety‑valve relief; district court failed to conduct required safety‑valve analysis and must allow opportunity to rebut |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stallings, 463 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2006) (government must show nexus between firearm and drug offense to apply § 2D1.1(b)(1))
- United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2010) (court may consider hearsay at sentencing only if reliable, credibility findings made, and defendant given chance to rebut)
- United States v. Lee, 68 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 1995) (hearsay not presumptively reliable; court must explain credibility basis)
- United States v. Gordon, 231 F.3d 750 (11th Cir. 2000) (hearsay from multiple consistent sources may supply sufficient indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 2009) (no reversal required when reliability of statements is apparent from record)
- Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (1992) (errors at sentencing are not harmless when they affect the sentence)