United States v. Lee, 892 F.3d 488

Mario Lee pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute ≥100 grams of heroin under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846; plea and career‑offender status set Guidelines at 120–240 months.
Government and the PSR attributed 1.3 kilograms of heroin to Lee based on grand jury testimony and proffer/interview statements from multiple cooperating witnesses (SI‑1 through SI‑8).
Lee objected at sentencing to the PSR drug‑quantity finding, arguing the out‑of‑court witness statements were unreliable, risked double counting, and that the government should have produced witnesses for live testimony and cross‑examination.
The district court found the witnesses generally credible, adopted the PSR’s 1.3 kg drug‑quantity estimate (noting the career‑offender calculation would control Guidelines regardless), and imposed a 218‑month sentence within the Guidelines range.
The PSR’s calculation used conservative assumptions (limited time windows, excluded certain corroboration, discounted bundle weights) to avoid double counting and to benefit Lee.
On appeal Lee challenged only the procedural reasonableness of the sentence as grounded on the drug‑quantity finding; the First Circuit reviewed for clear error and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reliability of out‑of‑court witness statements at sentencing	Lee: statements are inherently unreliable hearsay; Confrontation rights should require live testimony	Government/District Ct: sentencing courts may consider hearsay with sufficient indicia of reliability; Confrontation Clause not applicable at sentencing	Court: Confrontation Clause does not attach at sentencing; hearsay may be considered if sufficiently reliable; no error in considering these statements
Risk of double counting and quantity overstatement	Lee: multiple witnesses may have described the same transactions, inflating quantity; inconsistencies undermine the 1.3 kg finding	Government/PSR: PSR used conservative, limited windows, excluded some corroboration, and discounted bundle sizes to avoid double counting	Court: PSR’s narrow, lenient assumptions and corroborative indicia support the 1.3 kg estimate; no clear error in drug‑quantity finding

United States v. Dávila‑González, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir.) (standard for reviewing procedural soundness of sentence)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.) (procedural‑reasonableness error types)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (sentencing procedural‑reasonableness framework)
United States v. Mills, 710 F.3d 5 (1st Cir.) (drug‑quantity findings by preponderance; deferential review)
Cumpiano v. Banco Santander P.R., 902 F.2d 148 (1st Cir.) (clear‑error standard explained)
United States v. Green, 426 F.3d 64 (1st Cir.) (permissible reliance on hearsay with indicia of reliability at sentencing)
United States v. Cintrón‑Echautegui, 604 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (affirming conservative assumptions in quantity calculations)
United States v. Tardiff, 969 F.2d 1283 (1st Cir.) (use of confidential informant statements at sentencing)
United States v. Zapata, 589 F.3d 475 (1st Cir.) (affirming quantity findings based on indirect evidence)
United States v. Carl, 593 F.3d 115 (1st Cir.) (distinguishable; cross‑examination at trial not dispositive for sentencing reliance)
United States v. Reccko, 151 F.3d 29 (1st Cir.) (discussing application of Sentencing Guidelines provisions)