United States v. Hernandez, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18872

Hector Hernandez was indicted on January 18, 2011 for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine; he pleaded guilty to all three counts on September 1, 2011.
A cooperating witness, Felipe Rodriguez, implicated Hernandez in three large shipments (each ~75 kg) delivered to a Rockford, Illinois quarry and testified at sentencing; Rodriguez also said Hernandez gave him ~15 kg to sell separately.
At arrest, authorities seized over 1 kg of cocaine, trafficking paraphernalia, and $455,278 in cash from Hernandez’s residence; telephone intercepts corroborated logistics discussions between Hernandez and Rodriguez.
The PSR attributed 225 kg total (three shipments) to Hernandez and applied a base offense level of 38 under the 2011 Guidelines as he was held responsible for >150 kg; the district court adopted the PSR, denied safety-valve relief, granted a two-level acceptance reduction, and calculated a Guidelines range of 210–262 months.
The district court sentenced Hernandez to the bottom of the Guidelines range, 210 months’ imprisonment, and Hernandez appealed, arguing his plea was not knowing/voluntary, the >150 kg finding was erroneous, and the court impermissibly increased his mandatory minimum in violation of Alleyne.

Issue	Hernandez's Argument	Government/District Court Argument	Held
Whether Hernandez’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary	Hernandez lacked education/language fluency and did not understand Count One; Rule 11 inquiry was insufficient	Court conducted a thorough colloquy with interpreter, read charges, and elicited admissions and factual basis	Plea was knowing and voluntary; no plain error
Whether district court clearly erred in finding >150 kg based on cooperating witness	Rodriguez’s testimony was inconsistent (present for 2 vs 3 shipments); testimony unreliable	District court credited Rodriguez, whose testimony was corroborated by phone calls, seized drugs/cash, and factual proffer	No clear error; district court’s credibility determination stands
Whether judicial finding of >150 kg violated Fifth/Sixth Amendment under Alleyne	Finding increased mandatory minimum from 500 g to 150 kg and violated Alleyne because fact increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury	Charging document exposed Hernandez to a 5-year mandatory minimum; the district court did not impose a higher statutory minimum based on its finding; Guidelines are advisory	No Alleyne error because the judicial finding affected only advisory Guidelines, not the statutory mandatory minimum

United States v. Pineda-Buenaventura, 622 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review of Rule 11 colloquy and plea validity)
United States v. Contreras, 249 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2001) (clear-error review of drug-quantity findings)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase a mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury)
United States v. Woods, 148 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 1998) (district court’s credibility determinations entitled to deference)
United States v. Abdulahi, 523 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2008) (distinguishing advisory Guidelines findings from facts that increase statutory mandatory minimums)
United States v. Thomas, 446 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2006) (Guidelines-only factfinding does not trigger Alleyne)
United States v. De la Torre, 327 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2003) (same)