United States v. Miranda-Martinez
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10696
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Miranda was charged in two Puerto Rico indictments for large-scale cocaine and other drug conspiracies and related counts; he pled guilty to one count in each indictment under a plea agreement.
- The plea agreement stipulated a total offense level of 33 (base 36 with a 3-level reduction for acceptance) and provided that "no further adjustments or departures . . . shall be sought," while preserving the court’s sentencing discretion.
- The PSR reported that police had seized a semiautomatic handgun from Miranda in 2007, that co-conspirators possessed firearms at drug transactions, and that enforcers used guns to protect the organization.
- At sentencing the district court rejected Miranda’s objection and adopted a two-level firearms enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1); the court calculated a higher offense level than the parties had recommended and imposed concurrent 293-month sentences.
- Miranda appealed, arguing (1) the government breached the plea agreement by disclosing firearm-related facts at sentencing, and (2) the firearms enhancement lacked sufficient corroboration and was improperly applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government breached the plea agreement by prosecutors’ statements about firearms at sentencing | Government: replying to the court and disclosing known facts was proper and not a breach | Miranda: prosecutor’s confirmation that he possessed a gun violated the promise that no upward adjustments would be sought | No breach; prosecutor responded to the court’s inquiry and did not seek an enhancement in breach of the agreement |
| Whether plain-error review governs an unpreserved claim of breach | Government: plain-error review applies to forfeited plea-breach claims | Miranda: did not preserve below; asks for resentencing nonetheless | Applied plain-error standard but found no prejudicial error |
| Whether a two-level firearms enhancement under §2D1.1(b)(1) was justified by the record | Government: foreseeability of co-conspirator firearms and specific seizures support enhancement | Miranda: evidence was sparse, insufficiently corroborated, and speculative | Enhancement affirmed; district court’s foreseeability finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether leadership or explicit personal possession was required to support foreseeability | Government: leadership not required; foreseeability can rest on co-conspirator possession and scale of operations | Miranda: enhancement improperly rested on PSR leadership assertion which the court rejected | Not required; large-scale drug transactions and co-conspirator firearm seizures make firearm possession foreseeable |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error review applies to forfeited arguments about plea-bargain breaches)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (prosecutor at sentencing must honor plea agreements; breach fault rests with prosecutor)
- United States v. Gonczy, 357 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.) (prosecutor’s argumentative sentencing remarks can breach a plea agreement)
- United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (court may consider all relevant background and conduct at sentencing)
- United States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (omissions favorable to defendant can be implicit parts of plea bargains)
- United States v. Greig, 717 F.3d 212 (1st Cir.) (§2D1.1(b)(1) requires only reasonable foreseeability of co-conspirator’s weapon)
- United States v. Bianco, 922 F.2d 910 (1st Cir.) (firearms commonly used in large-scale drug trafficking)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (defendant bears burden to show prejudice on plain-error review)