United States v. Marco Flores-Alvarado
779 F.3d 250
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Flores-Alvarado pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute >=5 kg cocaine and >=1000 kg marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute >100 kg marijuana; district court sentenced him to life on the conspiracy count and 480 months concurrent on the PWID count.
- The PSR attributed about 31,111.16 kg marijuana-equivalent to Flores‑Alvarado, based in part on two large seizures: 1,424 lbs (Stokesdale) and 3,510 lbs (Lexington).
- Defense objected to attributing the Stokesdale and Lexington seizures to Flores‑Alvarado, arguing they were attempted purchases or otherwise not within the scope of his jointly‑undertaken activity; defense sought lower drug quantity and a downward variance.
- At sentencing the government relied on intercepted calls and argued foreseeability and conspiracy liability supported attributing those seizures; it presented no live witnesses or additional evidence at the hearing.
- The district court adopted the PSR, found by a preponderance of the evidence that Flores‑Alvarado qualified for base offense level 38 (life range), and sentenced accordingly.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded because the district court failed to make particularized factual findings that the seized quantities were within the scope of Flores‑Alvarado’s agreement (not merely foreseeable), as required for relevant‑conduct attribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Flores‑Alvarado) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court made required factual findings tying Stokesdale and Lexington seizures to Flores‑Alvarado’s jointly‑undertaken activity | PSR seizures were not conclusively linked to an agreement; court failed to resolve contested PSR matters and make particularized findings | Conspiracy makes the seizures attributable because they were reasonably foreseeable and tied by intercepted calls | Vacated and remanded: court failed to make particularized findings about the scope of Flores‑Alvarado’s agreement; foreseeability alone is insufficient |
| Whether acts of others (seized amounts) are attributable as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. §1B1.3 | Seizures were attempts/independent acts not within the scope of his agreement; §2X1.1 attempt reduction should apply | Conspiracy/ Pinkerton theory and foreseeability justify inclusion; §2D1.1 governs conspiracies so §2X1.1 is inapplicable | Attributability requires both scope of agreement and foreseeability; court must make particularized findings on both on remand |
| Whether adopting the PSR cures the lack of district findings | Adoption alone insufficient when PSR recitation does not establish necessary facts linking seizures to defendant | PSR support and prosecutor’s statements justified adoption | Adopting PSR does not satisfy Rule 32 obligations if PSR lacks supporting facts; remand required for factual resolution |
| Whether life sentence violated Eighth Amendment | Life sentence was cruel and unusual given circumstances | Life sentence permissible for repeat, large‑scale drug offender | Rejected: life sentence permissible; remand is solely for resentencing fact‑finding, not constitutional relief |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bolden, 325 F.3d 471 (4th Cir.) (requires particularized findings on scope and foreseeability for attributing others’ acts as relevant conduct)
- United States v. Gilliam, 987 F.2d 1009 (4th Cir.) (relevant conduct in conspiracy includes reasonably foreseeable acts of coconspirators)
- United States v. Morgan, 942 F.2d 243 (4th Cir.) (district court must resolve disputed PSR matters it relies upon)
- United States v. Chandia, 514 F.3d 365 (4th Cir.) (remand when PSR lacks factual assertions to support an enhancement adopted by the court)
- United States v. Kratsas, 45 F.3d 63 (4th Cir.) (life sentence for repeat drug offender does not necessarily violate Eighth Amendment)