United States v. Hector Almedina
686 F.3d 1312
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- A federal grand jury charged Almedina with multiple heroin offenses stemming from two Colombia-to-US parcels in Jan-Feb 2011.
- ICE conducted a controlled delivery; Almedina admitted receiving payments for the parcels and identified Salgado as the recipient.
- A second controlled delivery to Salgado followed; Salgado disclosed similar payments for the package and prior deliveries.
- The district court attributed 215 grams to the first package and 485.68 grams to the February package, totaling 701 grams for sentencing.
- Guidelines applied were USSG § 2D1.1(c)(5) for 700–999 grams; resulting in a guideline range of 97–121 months, with a 97-month sentence.
- Almedina appealed claiming error in the drug-quantity determination and the related sentencing calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the drug-quantity calculation clearly erroneous? | Almedina argues the first package may be dry run and not contain heroin. | Almedina contends no evidence supports inferring heroin in the first package. | No clear error; district court reasonably inferred quantity from similar packages. |
| May the district court base quantity on a related package when the first is unproven? | Almedina asserts lack of evidence for first package contents undermines inference. | Government shows similar payments and timing justify approximation. | Reasonable inference permitted; not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether a defendant need know the drug type/amount for base offense level attribution? | Almedina argues misattribution if first package contained a different contraband. | Defendant accountable for the substance in the package regardless of type/amount. | Acknowledges accountability for heroin despite unknown type/amount; error not shown. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion given the two-packages-from-same-source scenario? | Almedina asserts speculative estimation from two packages is improper. | Two similar packages from same source with similar payments support estimation. | Not an abuse of discretion; estimation supported by comparable facts and guidelines. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chavez, 584 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 2009) (drug quantity may be approximated when actual amount is not proven)
- United States v. Frazier, 89 F.3d 1501 (11th Cir. 1996) (allows approximate, conservative quantity estimations under USSG 2D1.1)
- United States v. Zapata, 139 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 1998) (establishes that estimations must be reliable and not merely speculative)
- United States v. Curry, 188 F. App’x 863 (11th Cir. 2006) (unpublished; upholds estimation based on closely related packages)
- United States v. Hollins, 498 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2007) (permits reasoned estimation using analogous trip data)
- United States v. Izquierdo, 448 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2006) (marks standard for reasonable alternative constructions when evidence supports more than one view)
- United States v. Alvarez-Coria, 447 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2006) (defendant accountable for substance in transported container regardless of knowledge of exact drug type)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 363 F.3d 1134 (11th Cir. 2004) (burden on government to prove drug quantity by a preponderance)
- United States v. Trainor, 376 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2004) (concept of regarding evidence as more probable than not in quantity determinations)
- United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621 (11th Cir. 2010) (clarifies standards for clearly erroneous factual findings)