United States v. Geraldo
15-3680 (L)
| 2d Cir. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Defendants Manuel Geraldo, Hargelis Vargas, and Jugo Cespedes pleaded guilty to participating in a racketeering conspiracy as members of the Bronx Trinitarios under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and admitted involvement in the March 19, 2010 murder of Orlando Salgado; Cespedes also admitted to the March 27, 2010 murder of Richard Canela.
- The district court held a Fatico hearing to determine whether the Salgado killing amounted to first- or second-degree murder for Guidelines calculations, finding it a close question but treating it as second-degree murder.
- Sentences: Geraldo 320 months (above Guidelines); Vargas 210 months; Cespedes 420 months (above Guidelines). Probation assigned Criminal History Category I for all three.
- On appeal, Geraldo challenged procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence; Cespedes challenged substantive reasonableness; Vargas raised (in reply) a jurisdictional challenge under the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA), because his admitted predicate acts occurred while he was a juvenile.
- The Second Circuit affirmed Geraldo’s and Cespedes’s sentences, finding no procedural or substantive error, but remanded Vargas’s case under a Jacobson remand so the district court can determine whether federal jurisdiction existed under the JDA (i.e., whether his participation continued into adulthood or whether Attorney General certifications were made).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of Geraldo’s sentence (consideration of learning disability and §3553(a) factors) | Sentencing court considered §3553(a) factors and relevant mitigation; sentence proper | Geraldo: court ignored or failed adequately to weigh his learning disability/ADHD and its impairment of judgment | Held: No procedural error; court considered disability and explained why violence and other factors outweighed mitigation |
| Substantive reasonableness of Geraldo’s above-Guidelines sentence | Variance justified by brutal, premeditated murder, continued violent conduct, and deterrence/incapacitation concerns | Geraldo: variance disproportionate and unsupported by record | Held: Sentence within permissible range of decisions; not substantively unreasonable |
| Substantive reasonableness of Cespedes’s above-Guidelines sentence and comparator choice | Court permissibly compared Cespedes to co-defendants with multiple murders; upward variance justified by second murder soon after Salgado killing and Guidelines inadequacy | Cespedes: court used improper comparators (those convicted of multiple murders) and misapplied grouping rules; should compare to Geraldo | Held: Upward variance justified—Cespedes committed a second, especially violent murder shortly after Salgado killing; policy disagreement with grouping rules is a permissible basis to vary |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction over Vargas (JDA issue) | Government did not show Attorney General certification; continued participation after age 18 not established in record | Vargas: predicate acts occurred while juvenile, so district court lacked jurisdiction under JDA absent certification or adult ratification | Held: Court could not resolve on record; Jacobson remand to district court to determine whether Vargas’s participation continued after 18 or required AG certification; if not shown, vacate conviction without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fatico, 603 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir.) (describing district-court factfinding at sentencing hearings)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (scope of appellate review for sentencing variances and need for justification proportional to deviation)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (en banc) (appellate standard for substantive unreasonableness)
- United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347 (2d Cir.) (JDA jurisdictional rules and Attorney General certification requirements)
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) (conspiracy liability not contingent on commission of a predicate act)
- United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir.) (conspiracy participation continues until conspiracy ends or defendant withdraws)
- United States v. Ramirez, 297 F.3d 185 (2d Cir.) (JDA transfer/processing when charged before age 21)
- United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir.) (appellate courts may obtain supplemental factual development via limited remand)
- Corporación Mexicana De Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex–Exploración Y Producción, 832 F.3d 92 (2d Cir.) (Jacobsontype limited remand authority explained)