United States v. Michael Torres
869 F.3d 1089
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Four Puente-13 gang members (Rafael and Cesar Munoz Gonzalez, Abraham Aldana, Michael Torres) were convicted after a 23-day trial of RICO, drug-trafficking conspiracy (Count Seven under 21 U.S.C. §846), and related offenses; convictions led to mandatory-minimum sentences under 21 U.S.C. §841(b) and §851 informations alleging prior drug convictions.
- The jury returned special findings that specified methamphetamine weight thresholds (≥50 g pure; ≥500 g mixture) were "reasonably foreseeable" to each defendant.
- Defendants challenged (1) Jury Instruction 50 (drug-quantity attribution), arguing the jury also should have been required to find quantities were "in furtherance of" jointly undertaken criminal activity; and (2) the denial of a multiple-conspiracies jury instruction for Aldana.
- Defendants also challenged the district court’s use of prior state drug convictions to trigger §841(b) mandatory minimums: (a) arguing some state convictions overlapped temporally with conspiracy conduct so were not "prior," and (b) arguing §851’s judge-found "prior" determination violated Apprendi/Alleyne.
- The panel majority (Ikuta, with a special concurrence by Clifton as to Instruction 50) affirmed convictions and sentences: upheld Jury Instruction 50 under existing Ninth Circuit precedent, refused multiple-conspiracies instruction for Aldana, held state convictions were properly "prior," and rejected the Apprendi/Alleyne challenge to §851 judge findings.
Issues
| Issue | Defendants' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jury Instruction 50 must require jury to find drug quantities were both "reasonably foreseeable" and "in furtherance of" jointly undertaken activity | Instruction was incomplete; Becerra/Banuelos logic requires conjunctive test (scope/in furtherance + reasonably foreseeable) | Ninth Circuit precedent requires only that quantities be within scope of agreement or reasonably foreseeable (disjunctive) | Affirmed: instruction requiring only "reasonably foreseeable" satisfied Banuelos/Becerra; special concurrence would apply plain‑error review and still affirm |
| Whether district court erred by denying multiple-conspiracies instruction for Aldana | Aldana argued his drug deals were separate conspiracies with Villa/Nunez, so jury should be instructed on multiple conspiracies | Evidence tied Villa and Nunez to Puente-13 and showed Aldana acted in furtherance of gang objectives; no proof he was only in separate conspiracies | Affirmed: no reasonable evidence jury could conclude Aldana was only in separate conspiracies; instruction not required |
| Whether prior state convictions were sufficiently "prior" to permit §841(b) enhancements when some alleged conduct overlapped with state convictions | Defendants argued temporal overlap with the conspiracy meant state convictions weren’t "prior" to the federal offense | Jury necessarily found conspiracy continued past the dates of the state convictions (indictment alleged up to 2010), so state convictions were final before the continuing conspiracy ended | Affirmed: prior state convictions were properly used to enhance sentences under §841(b) per Baker and related precedent |
| Whether §851 procedure allowing judge to find a conviction was "prior" violates Apprendi/Alleyne (right to jury) | Defendants argued the temporal qualifier "prior" is a fact increasing mandatory minimums and must be jury-found beyond a reasonable doubt | Supreme Court allows judge to determine the fact of a prior conviction (Apprendi/Alleyne leaves prior-conviction fact to judge); §851 procedure consistent | Affirmed: §851 and judge’s finding that convictions were prior do not violate Apprendi/Alleyne; judge may determine that fact |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Becerra, 992 F.2d 960 (9th Cir. 1993) (applies a disjunctive test — "within scope" or "reasonably foreseeable" — to attribute drug quantities to conspirators and extends that approach to §841(b))
- United States v. Banuelos, 322 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2003) (applies Becerra standard to §841(b) drug-quantity determinations)
- United States v. Ortiz, 362 F.3d 1274 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizes 1992 Guidelines amendment requiring conjunctive test — "in furtherance" and "reasonably foreseeable" — for relevant-conduct attribution under the Guidelines)
- United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) (holds use of disjunctive formulation for Guidelines sentencing was not plain error in that case)
- United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374 (9th Cir. 1993) (permits use of state convictions to enhance federal sentence where conspiracy period extended beyond state-conviction dates)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts that increase penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury, except the fact of a prior conviction)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (extends Apprendi principle to facts that increase mandatory minimums; confirms exception for prior convictions)
- United States v. Long, 301 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (discusses Pinkerton doctrine: conspirator liable for co-conspirators' substantive offenses that are reasonably foreseeable and in furtherance of conspiracy)