United States v. Montoya
844 F.3d 63
1st Cir.2016Background
- Montoya sold heroin to a government cooperating witness (CW) on three occasions in 2012 and was indicted on three counts of possession with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- After a five-day trial a jury convicted Montoya on all counts; the district court sentenced him to 132 months and denied a new-trial motion.
- Montoya sought an entrapment instruction at trial; the district court refused after finding Montoya had not made the required prima facie showing.
- The government had not preserved complete CW call logs and had the CW erase a Facebook account before witness-protection entry; defense alleged spoliation and delayed disclosure of Brady material (initial CW interview reports).
- Montoya challenged (1) the denial of an entrapment instruction, (2) being compelled to disclose an entrapment theory pretrial, (3) prejudice from the government’s delayed Brady disclosure, and (4) his career-offender enhancement based on prior Massachusetts convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in refusing entrapment instruction | Court should have submitted entrapment to jury because CW induced sales and Montoya lacked predisposition | Montoya argued government overreached (friendship, CW addiction, missing records) and he lacked predisposition | Affirmed: Montoya failed to show improper inducement and lacked predisposition; no prima facie entrapment showing |
| Whether court forced pretrial disclosure of entrapment theory | Montoya: court compelled premature disclosure, violating rules | Government/court: defense volunteered to notify and had earlier informed government of entrapment motion | No plain error: court merely set a timeline for defense’s volunteered notice; no prejudice shown |
| Whether delayed disclosure of CW interview reports (Brady material) warranted new trial | Montoya: late production prevented timely impeachment/alternate strategy; prejudice | Government: reports produced mid-trial before CW testimony; defense used them in cross and closing | No abuse of discretion: defense used the reports at trial; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Whether ADW conviction qualifies as "crime of violence" for career-offender status | Montoya: Massachusetts ADW should not categorically qualify | Government: ADW fits the guideline’s force clause; career-offender enhancement proper | De novo affirmed: under circuit precedent (Whindleton/Fields) Mass. ADW is a crime of violence; career-offender designation proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Shinderman v. United States, 515 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2008) (prima facie entrapment production standard)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 858 F.2d 809 (1st Cir. 1988) (predisposition indicia)
- Guevara v. United States, 706 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2013) (distinguishing opportunity from improper inducement)
- Díaz-Maldonado v. United States, 727 F.3d 130 (1st Cir. 2013) (examples of overreaching conduct)
- Gendron v. United States, 18 F.3d 955 (1st Cir. 1994) ("plus" factors and sympathy/withdrawal exploitation)
- Young v. United States, 78 F.3d 758 (1st Cir. 1996) (friendship alone not a plus factor)
- Laurent v. United States, 607 F.3d 895 (1st Cir. 2010) (spoliation inference requires bad faith)
- Whindleton v. United States, 797 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2015) (Mass. ADW qualifies under force clause)
- Fields v. United States, 823 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2016) (applying force-clause analysis to career-offender guideline)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (government’s Brady disclosure duty)