United States v. Horacio Yuman-Hernandez
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7037
9th Cir.2013Background
- Yuman-Hernandez was convicted after a bench trial of conspiracy to rob a cocaine stash house and related firearm use.
- The ATF conducted a reverse sting; an agent posed as a drug courier and offered to facilitate a stash-house robbery.
- The stash house was fictitious and designed to induce a larger-punishment outcome; the agent kept opportunities to withdraw.
- Yuman-Hernandez aided the conspiracy by recruiting co-conspirators and assisting in obtaining a firearm and marijuana for the robbery.
- At sentencing, the district court rejected Yuman-Hernandez’s sentencing entrapment argument, concluding no lack of predisposition.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that in fictitious stash-house cases a defendant need show lack of either intent or capability to deal in the charged quantity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of predisposition must be shown as to intent and capability | Yuman-Hernandez argues lack of predisposition to deal in 20–25 kg. | District court correctly required predisposition burden; entrapment not shown. | No; lack of predisposition can be shown by lack of intent or capability. |
| Impact of outrageous conduct on sentencing entrapment analysis | Outrageous conduct should influence entrapment analysis. | Outrageousness is not an independent prong. | Outrageousness is not an independent requirement for sentencing entrapment. |
| Standard of review for sentencing entrapment determination | Burden de novo review for entrapment matters. | Abuse-of-discretion review applies to district court’s factual findings. | Review for abuse of discretion; burden on defendant to show entrapment. |
| Effect of fictitious stash-house framework on predisposition test | Government can manipulate quantity, affecting predisposition. | Predisposition determined by intent/capability; manipulation does not erase burden. | In fictitious stash-house cases, test allows lack of intent or capability to establish entrapment. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Briggs, 623 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2010) (manipulable stake raises entrapment concerns in stash-house settings)
- United States v. Mejia, 559 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2009) (entrapment burden on defendant; predisposition requires lack of intent and/or capability)
- United States v. Naranjo, 52 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995) (pre-disposition analysis in drug purchase context)
- United States v. Staufer, 38 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 1994) (capability vs. intent in predisposition framework)
- United States v. Schafer, 625 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010) (outrageous conduct not an independent prong; focus on predisposition)