United States v. Mendez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16204

Background

Jorge Luis Mendez was part of a multi-state conspiracy supplying Puerto Rico–issued identity documents and sets to undocumented aliens in the continental U.S.; he acted as a Puerto Rico–based "Savarona Supplier."
He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic identification documents (18 U.S.C. § 1028), conspiracy to encourage aliens to reside in the U.S. (8 U.S.C. § 1324), and several counts of aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A); three counts carried a mandatory consecutive 24-month term.
The PSR calculated a base offense level under USSG § 2L2.1 (document-based), finding the offense involved 100+ documents and yielding an adjusted offense level of 21 (Guidelines range 37–46 months on Counts 1 & 2).
The government argued instead that USSG § 2L1.1 (alien-based) controlled, applying a 9-level enhancement for inducing/harboring 100+ aliens and producing an offense level of 22 (Guidelines range 41–51 months), leading to an aggregate 75-month sentence (51 + 24).
At sentencing the judge said "Count 2 controls," announced calculations that mixed PSR language with the government’s outcome (stated total offense level 22), but did not explain why the alien-based 100+ enhancement applied or make individualized findings attributing 100 aliens to Mendez.
The First Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing because the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation for the enhancement, frustrating meaningful appellate review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a 9-level enhancement for inducing/harboring 100+ aliens was properly applied	Gov't: The record (co-defendant admissions, seized documents, phone texts, PSR) supports finding 100+ aliens attributable to Mendez and §2L1.1 controls	Mendez: No individualized finding; record does not support attributing 100 aliens to him; extrapolation and possible double-counting make the enhancement improper	Vacated and remanded — court could not discern why the alien-based enhancement was applied; explanation was insufficient for appellate review
Whether judge made necessary individualized findings on quantity attributable to defendant	Gov't: Arguments and PSR suffice for inference	Mendez: Court must make explicit findings when basis is not obvious	Held: Court failed to make required or inferable findings; remand required
Whether sentence explanation was adequate (procedural reasonableness)	Gov't: Guidelines range presumptively reasonable; judge referenced PSR and §3553 factors	Mendez: Judge gave only perfunctory §3553 comments and relied on guideline range without adequate explanation for top-of-range sentence	Held: Sentencing explanation inadequate in light of unresolved enhancement issue; left for resentencing
Substantive unreasonableness of 75-month aggregate sentence	Mendez: First-time offender, disparate co-defendant sentences, and sentence above government recommendation	Gov't: Within Guidelines and close to government's low-end recommendation	Held: Not decided on merits — remanded because substantive-reasonableness challenges depend on resolution of enhancement and resentencing outcome

Key Cases Cited

Clogston v. United States, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir.) (procedural and substantive reasonableness standards)
Ramos v. United States, 763 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (plain-error review in sentencing context)
Gilman v. United States, 478 F.3d 440 (1st Cir.) (limits on inferring district court reasoning and remand when rationale is inscrutable)
Rodríguez v. United States, 731 F.3d 20 (1st Cir.) (permitting inference of court reasoning by comparing arguments and PSR)
Zehrung v. United States, 714 F.3d 628 (1st Cir.) (must be able to discern district court findings to permit appellate review)
Hunnewell v. United States, 891 F.2d 955 (1st Cir.) (discussion of the high bar for plain-error relief)
Ahrendt v. United States, 560 F.3d 69 (1st Cir.) (explaining plain-error third and fourth prongs in sentencing context)