United States v. Neto
659 F.3d 194
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Neto I (2006-2007) included harboring/bribery charges; Neto I sentence was 60 months (2007).
- Neto II indictment (Oct 25, 2006) charged Neto and Neves with conspiracy and five counts of smuggling illegal aliens; Neves was fugitive during sealing.
- Neto II unsealed July 30, 2007; Neto arraigned Sept 12, 2007; Neto I sentence expired July 22, 2009 while Neto II proceeding.
- Neto II trial (Feb 9, 2010) resulted in conviction on conspiracy and three of five smuggling counts, triggering a five-year mandatory minimum.
- Neto sought dismissal/resentencing arguments; district court denied dismissal and held sentencing below minimum not warranted; Neto II sentencing occurred May 11, 2010, five-year sentence imposed.
- On appeal, Neto challenges Neto II’s validity, potential reshaping of sentence below minimum, and ineffective assistance of counsel regarding timing of Neto II sentencing
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Neto II violates Double Jeopardy | Neto contends second prosecution unfair despite Blockburger. | Neto asserts due process supplements Blockburger to prohibit this combination. | No; Blockburger satisfied, no due process violation. |
| Whether sentencing below the statutory minimum is warranted due to government misconduct | Neto argues government manipulated proceedings to obtain harsher punishment. | Government actions had legitimate reasons; no extraordinary misconduct. | No extraordinary misconduct; five-year minimum stands. |
| Whether Neto's ineffective assistance claim should be decided on direct appeal | Neto asserts counsel failed to ensure Neto II sentencing before Neto I expired. | Record insufficient for direct resolution; claim remanded for collateral review. | Denied on direct appeal without prejudice to collateral challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2003) (due process not broader than double jeopardy protections)
- Dixon v. United States, 509 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1993) (Blockburger governs successive prosecutions and punishments)
- Colón-Osorio v. United States, 10 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 1993) (Blockburger guides successive prosecutions)
- Morris v. United States, 99 F.3d 476 (1st Cir. 1996) (Blockburger completes analysis in successive prosecutions)
- Stokes v. United States, 124 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 1997) (indictment validity unaffected by potential sentencing issues)
- Montoya v. United States, 62 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995) (sentencing below minimum for extraordinary misconduct may be allowed)
- Egemonye v. United States, 62 F.3d 425 (1st Cir. 1995) ( prosecutors’ intent and misconduct considerations in sentencing)
- Saldaña v. United States, 109 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 1997) (delays alone do not justify downward departure absent unusual effects)
- Hoag v. New Jersey, 356 U.S. 464 (U.S. 1958) (due process concerns in successive prosecutions when improper motive shown)
- Ciucci v. Illinois, 356 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1958) (noted limits on due process in consecutive prosecutions)