United States v. Lucena-Rivera
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7732
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Lucena-Rivera pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments; sentencing followed.
- District court calculated laundering amount between $2.5 million and $7 million, excluding $1.816 million as not tied to drug trafficking.
- Government sought three enhancements: 6-level for drug-proceeds, 4-level for being in the business of laundering funds, 4-level for leadership; Lucena-Rivera objected to the two latter enhancements.
- Court applied leadership and business-of-laundering enhancements; total offense level 37, guideline range 210–240 months, sentence 220 months.
- Lucena-Rivera challenged the money-laundering quantity calculation, leadership enhancement, and business-of-laundering enhancement, plus §3553(a) factors and explanation.
- Court remanded for clarification on the business-of-laundering enhancement, while denying other errors; retained jurisdiction to monitor district-court selection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the laundered-amount calculation proper? | Lucena-Rivera argues separation of promotional vs concealment laundering; argues not all funds were proceeds. | Government contends promotional/concealment are modalities of one offense; quantity must include all laundered funds. | Promotional and concealment laundering treated as single offense; total includes all laundered funds. |
| Did the district court properly apply the leadership enhancement? | Lucena-Rivera contends failing to prove status and scope; argues not led by him. | Government shows Lucena-Rivera led or organized participants and that scope was met. | Finding of leadership not clearly erroneous; sustained based on scope and leadership evidence. |
| Was the ‘in the business of laundering funds’ enhancement properly applied? | Lucena-Rivera contends there were insufficient factual findings under the Application Note factors. | Government argues intertwined drug and laundering activities fit the enhancement. | Remanded for explicit findings on Application Note factors prior to deciding the enhancement. |
| Did the district court adequately explain § 3553(a) factors and avoid plain error? | Lucena-Rivera claims the court gave only a cursory explanation; questioned deterrence and offense seriousness. | Court discussed deterrence and seriousness; substantial reasoning cited in record. | Not plain error; record shows consideration of § 3553(a) factors; remand limited to business enhancement. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cedeño-Pérez, 579 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2009) (promotional and concealment laundering treated as modalities of single offense)
- United States v. Iacaboni, 363 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (modality of laundering offense considerations)
- United States v. García-Torres, 341 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2003) (promotional/concealment laundering modalities acknowledged)
- United States v. Carrero-Hernández, 643 F.3d 344 (1st Cir. 2011) (status vs scope in leadership enhancement)
- United States v. Quinones, 26 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 1994) (remand procedure for clarifying enhancement findings)
- United States v. Barbour, 393 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2004) (manipulation in sentencing; standards for review)