United States v. Jean-Baptiste
663 F. App'x 7
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Alcindy Jean‑Baptiste pled guilty to two counts arising from a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, heroin, and oxycodone in Maine.
- At sentencing the Presentence Investigation Report attributed a drug quantity of 1,614 kg marijuana equivalent, producing a Guidelines range of 78–97 months.
- The district court relied exclusively on testimony of Officer Joey Brown (case agent, 10 years' law‑enforcement experience) and wiretap transcripts he interpreted; Brown explained drug argot on the calls.
- Jean‑Baptiste received concurrent 78‑month sentences (low end of the Guidelines) and four years supervised release.
- He raised two sentencing challenges on appeal: (1) the court clearly erred in finding the drug quantity based on Brown’s testimony (insufficient foundation for Brown’s interpretations); (2) the court should have required proof beyond a reasonable doubt for drug‑quantity findings.
- He did not object at trial; the First Circuit applied plain‑error review and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Jean‑Baptiste's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in admitting/crediting Officer Brown’s interpretation of wiretaps (foundation/lay opinion) | Brown lacked sufficient foundation/experience; testimony unreliable | Brown’s law‑enforcement experience and case involvement qualified him to give lay‑opinion interpretations | No error: court permissibly treated Brown’s testimony as lay opinion and found him credible |
| Whether drug‑quantity findings at sentencing require proof beyond a reasonable doubt | Sentencing facts that increase Guidelines should be proven beyond reasonable doubt | Sentencing factfinding may be by preponderance so long as it does not increase statutory maximum punishment | No change: preponderance standard governs judicial factfinding that does not raise statutory maximums (Apprendi/Alleyne not implicated) |
| Whether there was “no actual evidence” supporting the drug‑quantity finding | Contends transcripts and testimony did not support quantity conclusion | Court permissibly drew reasonable inferences from wiretap transcripts and Brown’s testimony | Rejected: reasonable inferences from admitted transcripts and agent testimony sustain the finding |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Etienne, 772 F.3d 907 (1st Cir. 2014) (plain‑error framework and evidentiary credibility at sentencing)
- United States v. Prange, 771 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2014) (law‑enforcement lay‑opinion testimony interpreting drug jargon)
- United States v. Platte, 577 F.3d 387 (1st Cir. 2009) (preponderance standard for sentencing factfinding absent increase to statutory maximum)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (Sixth Amendment jury right where facts increase prescribed statutory maximum)
- United States v. Doe, 741 F.3d 217 (1st Cir. 2013) (judicial factfinding that does not affect statutory range does not implicate Apprendi/Alleyne)
- United States v. McDonald, 804 F.3d 497 (1st Cir. 2015) (court may draw reasonable inferences from wiretap transcripts and agent testimony at sentencing)