United States v. Julio Aviles, Sr.
938 F.3d 503
3rd Cir.2019Background
- Lebanon County officers obtained a warrant based on an affidavit describing eight police-supervised controlled buys by confidential informant “RCI-1”; searches of Aviles’s residence yielded large quantities of drugs, paraphernalia, and firearms.
- Aviles moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the affidavit contained false statements and material omissions (e.g., whether RCI-1 paid with police currency or exchanged personal property, RCI-1’s addiction and relationship with Aviles) and sought a Franks hearing.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, denied a Franks hearing threshold showing, refused defense questioning that might disclose RCI-1’s identity, and denied suppression; a jury convicted Aviles on all counts.
- At sentencing the Government sought mandatory life under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) based on three prior state drug convictions (two New Jersey, one Maryland); the district court treated the New Jersey convictions as qualifying and imposed life.
- While the appeal was pending Congress enacted the First Step Act, which reduced the mandatory term and narrowed qualifying predicates; the panel held the Act did not apply because the district court had already imposed sentence.
- The Third Circuit affirmed denial of suppression but vacated the life sentence, concluding at least two prior convictions (N.J. § 2C:35-4 and Md. Crim. Code § 5-602) do not qualify as predicate "felony drug offenses" under the pre–First Step Act § 841 framework, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Aviles's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aviles made the Franks threshold showing entitling him to a hearing / whether suppression was required | Affidavit contained deliberate or reckless falsehoods and omissions (payment method, personal-property trades, informant reliability/relationship) that were material to probable cause | Affidavit still contained ample independent police observations (searches, witnessed buys, surveillance, prior convictions) that would sustain probable cause even without alleged errors | Denied: Aviles failed to show the alleged inaccuracies/omissions would have defeated probable cause; no Franks hearing or suppression required |
| Whether the First Step Act applies to sentences already imposed but on appeal | A sentence is not "imposed" until finality (after appellate review), so First Step Act should apply if appeal unresolved | "Imposed" means the district court’s pronouncement of sentence; Congress used "imposed" not "final," so Act does not apply to sentences already entered by district court | Held for Government: Act does not apply; sentencing court had imposed sentence before enactment |
| Whether N.J. Stat. § 2C:35-4 conviction is a qualifying "felony drug offense" | Drug-type listed in statute must match federal list; omissions render the predicate invalid | Substance listing in statute creates divisible offenses and records show heroin was charged, so conviction qualifies | Held for Aviles on this count: court concluded statute’s drug-type list are means (not elements) — § 2C:35-4 is broader than federal definition and does not qualify as predicate |
| Whether Md. Crim. Code § 5-602 conviction is a qualifying "felony drug offense" | Maryland statute lists substances broader than federal list; record documents here do not identify substance | If statute divisible, modified categorical approach could identify qualifying substance from record | Held for Aviles on this count: record documents do not specify substance and statute’s broader sweep prevents treating conviction as qualifying predicate |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes showing required to obtain an evidentiary hearing challenging an affidavit’s veracity)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (introduces the categorical approach to predicate-offense analysis)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (clarifies limits on using crime records and when modified categorical approach applies)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (directs how to determine whether statutory alternatives are elements or means)
- United States v. Henderson, 841 F.3d 623 (3d Cir. 2016) (applies categorical/modified categorical framework in this Circuit)
- United States v. Pierson, 925 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2019) (interprets when a sentence is "imposed" under the First Step Act)
- United States v. Yusuf, 461 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 2006) (discusses standards for Franks challenges)