United States v. Julio Rolon, 445 F. App'x 314

Rolon and Ortiz agreed to commit a reverse-sting home invasion targeting a stash house; CI/police setup a fake raid to deter the plan and undercover officers proposed a cocaine-stash-house robbery.
At meetings with the CI and undercover detective, Ortiz and Rolon discussed armed participation, disguises, badges, two-way radios, and splitting kidnapped cocaine proceeds.
On the day of the planned robbery, Ortiz and Rolon arrived armed and wearing police paraphernalia; law enforcement arrested them at the warehouse after the CI guided them there.
A 10-count federal indictment followed: Counts 1–5 include conspiracy/attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, and 5 also includes a conspiracy to use and carry a firearm; Counts 6–7 involve firearm charges; Counts 8–10 involve felon-in-possession (federal firearms) issues; Dimolino faced related charges.
Ortiz and Rolon were convicted on most counts; Rolon and Ortiz were sentenced to life for several counts, with additional sentences for related firearm offenses; Count 5’s sentence was challenged and later vacated/remanded on appeal.
The court affirmed most convictions and sentences but vacated and remanded for resentencing on Count 5 (the § 924(o) firearms conspiracy).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantive due process—outrageous government conduct	Ortiz/Rolon contend reverse-sting was outrageous conduct.	Ortiz/Rolon argue due process was violated by government tactics.	No due-process violation; reverse sting allowed under circuit precedent.
Prosecutor's closing argument	Prosecutor’s remarks about “convicted murderer” and other comments biased the jury.	Such comments were improper and warrant mistrial.	No reversible error; any prejudice cured by striking remarks and proper instructions.
Jury instruction on § 924(c)(1)(A) and possible constructive amendment	Conjunctive indictment with disjunctive jury charge risked constructive amendment.	Disjunctive charge misaligned with indictment; potential amendment.	No constructive amendment; disjunctive charge consistent with statute and indictment.
Allen charge coerciveness	Allen charge was coercive after long deliberations.	Allen charge was permissible under circuit pattern.	Not reversible; pattern Allen charge approved and not coercive under the circumstances.
Ortiz’s career-offender predicate (Fla. 1997 resisting an officer with violence)	Question whether Florida conviction qualifies as crime of violence under § 4B1.1.	Possible invalid predicate would affect life sentence.	Predicate valid; Nix/Jackson context support; sentence sustained; remand limited to Count 5.

United States v. Sanchez, 138 F.3d 1410 (11th Cir. 1998) (reverse-sting methods permissible investigative technique)
United States v. Savage, 701 F.2d 867 (11th Cir. 1983) (government infiltration of criminal activity allowed)
United States v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010) (rebuttal of entrapment defense evidence admissibility)
United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1979) (use of evidence to rebut entrapment)
United States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807 (11th Cir. 2011) (reasonable-doubt instructions cure improper remarks)
United States v. Simpson, 228 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2000) (de novo review of jury-instruction errors)
United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2002) (plain-error review for unpreserved objections)
United States v. Lopez, 590 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2009) (jurors given guidance on responding to jury questions)
United States v. Trujillo, 146 F.3d 838 (11th Cir. 1998) (general guidance on jury deliberations)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (ACCA residual clause interpretation for violent felonies)