United States v. Nunez
840 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Jowenky Nuñez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 28+ grams of crack cocaine; a separate firearms charge was dismissed per the plea agreement.
- Arrested after a DEA investigation in Bangor, Maine; sentencing based on a revised PSI and testimony from coconspirators and prior trial testimony.
- District court applied: base offense level 32 (drug quantity), +2 weapons enhancement, +3 role-in-offense (manager) enhancement, -3 acceptance of responsibility → total offense level 34; CHC III → GSR 188–235 months.
- Court accepted a reduced drug-quantity calculation proposed by Nuñez, but found/supports testimony that Nuñez supervised others and possessed a coconspirator’s firearm at the stash house.
- Government moved for a §5K1.1 downward departure for substantial assistance; court imposed a 97-month sentence (below the GSR and below the government’s recommended 120 months).
- Nuñez appealed, challenging the role enhancement, the weapons enhancement, and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence (including alleged disparity with coconspirator Cabrera).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role-in-offense enhancement (USSG §3B1.1(b)) | Gov: Enhancement warranted because Nuñez managed or supervised others in an extensive conspiracy | Nuñez: He merely followed orders and did not exercise managerial control over others | Affirmed — testimony from multiple coconspirators supported managerial role; no clear error in finding supervision and control |
| Weapons enhancement (USSG §2D1.1(b)(1)) | Gov: Enhancement proper because Nuñez possessed a firearm at stash house in furtherance of the conspiracy | Nuñez: Challenge focused on a different coconspirator’s gun (Holmes) and argued lack of link between gun and offense | Affirmed — court rejected Holmes gun proffer but relied on Nuñez’s own prior trial testimony admitting possession of Cogswell’s gun at the stash house; no innocent explanation shown |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Nuñez: Sentence substantively unreasonable and disparate compared to ringleader Cabrera | Court/Gov: Sentence reflected §3553(a) factors, Nuñez’s role, and criminal history; downward departure given for cooperation | Affirmed — sentence plausible and within universe of reasonable outcomes; disparity claim fails because Cabrera and Nuñez were not similarly situated (different CHC and records) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
- Almonte-Nuñez v. United States, 771 F.3d 84 (plea-appeal sourcing of facts)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (advisory nature of the Guidelines)
- Vargas-Dávila v. United States, 649 F.3d 129 (reasonableness as touchstone of review)
- Flores-Machicote v. United States, 706 F.3d 16 (sentencing discretion and §3553(a) considerations)
- Walker v. United States, 665 F.3d 212 (standard of review for factual findings and guideline application)
- Voccola v. United States, 99 F.3d 37 (role-in-offense enhancement principles)
- Cruz v. United States, 120 F.3d 1 (managerial role may be inferred from actual operation)
- Cruz-Rodríguez v. United States, 541 F.3d 19 (role enhancement precedent)
- Savoie v. United States, 985 F.2d 612 (defendant need not be head of conspiracy for managerial enhancement)
- Anderson v. United States, 452 F.3d 87 (government burden to prove weapon possession)
- Gobbi v. United States, 471 F.3d 302 (weapons enhancement and rebuttable showing of improbability)
- Ruiz v. United States, 905 F.2d 499 (possession of firearm at stash house can justify enhancement absent innocent explanation)
- Martin v. United States, 520 F.3d 87 (guidelines as conventional starting point)
- King v. United States, 741 F.3d 305 (below-range sentences rarely substantively unreasonable)
- Rivera-López v. United States, 736 F.3d 633 (comparing co-defendant sentences insufficient to show unwarranted disparity)
- Dávila-González v. United States, 595 F.3d 42 (similar on disparity proof)
- Gomez-Pabon v. United States, 911 F.2d 847 (defendant not entitled to lighter sentence because co-defendants did)
- Deppe v. United States, 509 F.3d 54 (relevance of defendant’s non-user status to sentencing)
- Zannino v. United States, 895 F.2d 1 (briefing standards; abandoned claims)
- Teeter v. United States, 257 F.3d 14 (defendant bound by drug-quantity calculation proposed at sentencing)