United States v. Magaly Gonzalez
694 F. App'x 746
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Magaly Gonzalez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health-care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and was sentenced to 60 months.
- The Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) recommended a three-level role enhancement and a two-level sophisticated-means enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines.
- Gonzalez objected at sentencing to those two enhancements, placing the burden on the Government to prove the disputed facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
- At the sentencing hearing the Government offered a factual proffer but did not introduce additional evidence to support the enhancements; the plea proffer’s admitted facts were insufficient to establish them.
- The Government conceded the enhancements lacked sufficient proof; the district court nevertheless imposed them.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the evidentiary record and vacated Gonzalez’s sentence, remanding for resentencing because the enhancements were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the three-level role enhancement was proven by a preponderance | Gonzalez argued the Government failed to prove her aggravated role | Government conceded but relied on plea/sentencing proffer | Enhancement not supported; vacated and remanded |
| Whether the two-level sophisticated means enhancement was proven | Gonzalez argued insufficient proof in record | Government relied on proffer and PSI paragraphs | Enhancement not supported; vacated and remanded |
| Burden of proof for disputed sentencing facts | Gonzalez maintained Gov must prove disputed facts by preponderance | Government had burden and opportunity but did not present evidence | Court reaffirmed preponderance standard and vacated sentence |
| Whether appellate court should address substantive reasonableness | Gonzalez challenged substantive reasonableness of sentence | Court noted misapplication of Guidelines required resentencing first | Court declined to reach reasonableness claim; remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aguilar-Ibarra, 740 F.3d 587 (11th Cir. 2014) (government must prove disputed sentencing facts by a preponderance)
- United States v. Lawrence, 47 F.3d 1559 (11th Cir. 1995) (preponderance standard is meaningful and not toothless)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (court may not rely on disputed facts absent sufficient evidence)
- United States v. Polar, 369 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2004) (sentencing findings may be based on trial evidence, undisputed PSI facts, or evidence at sentencing)
- United States v. Washington, 714 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2013) (attorney’s factual assertions at sentencing are not substitute for evidence; government generally cannot present new evidence on remand if it had opportunity)
- United States v. Martinez, [citation="584 F.3d 102"`] (11th Cir. 2009) (vacatur and remand appropriate when court imposes enhancement without requiring government to present sufficient evidence)