United States v. Jhon Jairo Cruz-Trejos
688 F. App'x 100
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jhon Jairo Cruz-Trejos pled guilty to: (1) conspiracy to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine; (2) distribution of ≥5 kg cocaine; and (3) conspiracy to use/possess machine guns in relation to drug trafficking.
- The conduct included trafficking large quantities of cocaine to the U.S. and using proceeds to purchase ~100 automatic assault weapons for ELN and FARC (designated terrorist organizations).
- District court imposed a 13-year prison sentence: a 10-year mandatory minimum for the cocaine offense plus a 3-year upward departure (total 13 years), five years supervised release, and a $300 special assessment.
- Cruz-Trejos appealed, arguing (1) procedural error — inadequate explanation for the 36-month departure from the Guidelines range, and (2) substantive unreasonableness of the sentence.
- The Second Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion, addressing both procedural and substantive reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Cruz-Trejos) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural adequacy of district court’s explanation for 36-month upward departure | Court sufficiently explained departure based on seriousness, deterrence, and defendant’s characteristics | Departure lacked sufficient explanation given its size relative to Guidelines | Affirmed: district court provided adequate, detailed reasons allowing review and public understanding |
| Whether district court misapplied Guidelines or relied on clearly erroneous facts | Court applied facts about weapons procurement and negotiations to justify departure | Claimed procedural errors and insufficient consideration of mitigating personal circumstances | Rejected: court considered 3553(a) factors and rejected defendant’s mitigation claims as inconsistent with record |
| Substantive reasonableness of added 3 years above mandatory minimum | Added time justified by trafficking plus efforts to arm known terrorist groups; within permissible range | Sentence was substantively unreasonable/shockingly high | Affirmed: not an exceptional case; sentence not shocking or unsupportable |
| Whether sentence damages administration of justice | Government: enhanced sentence safeguards against terrorism-linked arms trafficking | Defendant: enhancement disproportionate to drug offense | Rejected: enhancement reasonable given weapon procurement for terrorist organizations |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McIntosh, 753 F.3d 388 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for sentencing; abuse of discretion covers procedural and substantive review)
- United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015) (requirement that district courts explain substantial departures in enough detail for review)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive-reasonableness review is a backstop against sentences that would damage administration of justice)