United States v. Hunter (Soborski)
708 F. App'x 6
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Slawomir Soborski pleaded guilty to conspiring to import ≥5 kg of cocaine after participating in a 2013 government sting in which he provided security/counter-surveillance for purported traffickers.
- He was told the operation involved large quantities ("hundreds of kilos") though the quantities were part of the government-controlled sting.
- PSR adopted by the district court set base offense level and with enhancements/subtractions produced an offense level yielding a Guidelines range of 135–168 months (total offense level 33); the court varied downward and sentenced Soborski to 108 months.
- On appeal Soborski argued (1) the government’s sting improperly manipulated sentencing by inventing large drug quantities and (2) he qualified for a §3B1.2 minor-role reduction (Amendment 794 implications).
- The Second Circuit rejected the sentencing-manipulation claim but found the record unclear whether the district court applied Amendment 794’s revised §3B1.2 standard (which focuses comparison to co‑participants in the specific case) and therefore vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sentencing-factor manipulation | Soborski: government-created "fictional" large quantities unfairly increased Guidelines level; court should account for manipulation | Government: defendant can be held responsible for quantities he agreed to when participating in conspiracy; no outrageous government misconduct shown | Rejected—court need not remand; defendant lawfully accountable for purported quantities in a sting absent showing of outrageous government misconduct (citing Cromitie/Caban) |
| §3B1.2 role reduction (Amendment 794) | Soborski: was a minor participant and should get a reduction; prior briefing applied older "universe" standard | Government: disputed; did not articulate position on Amendment 794 in district court or on appeal | Vacated and remanded—record unclear whether district court applied Amendment 794’s instruction to compare defendant to co‑participants in the same criminal activity; resentencing required so court can apply and explain under new guidance |
| Preservation / Plain-error standard | Soborski: argued entitlement though did not preserve Amendment 794 issue below | Government: argues issue was unpreserved so plain-error review required | Plain-error standard met—Amendment 794 unambiguous, potential effects on Guidelines large, and failure to apply could affect substantial rights (Molina‑Martinez precedent) |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Soborski: sentence substantively unreasonable | Government: sentence reasonable given facts and downward variance | Not reached—the court remanded on procedural ground (role reduction) so substantive claim not decided |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2013) (defendant may be held responsible for drug quantities he agreed to in a government sting absent outrageous misconduct)
- United States v. Lacey, 699 F.3d 710 (2d Cir. 2012) (Sentencing Commission’s interpretation of its own guidelines is entitled to controlling weight unless plainly erroneous)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (error in Guidelines range can establish reasonable probability of a different sentence for plain‑error review)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (setting standard for plain‑error review)
- United States v. Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2011) (remand appropriate where record leaves doubt whether district court considered correct sentencing factors)
- United States v. Fleming, 397 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2005) (presumption that district court considered properly presented Guidelines provisions)