United States v. Occhiuto, 784 F.3d 862

Occhiuto was convicted in the First Circuit on conspiracy to distribute heroin and distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841, and appeals the conviction and sentence.
The Confrontation Clause challenge centers on FBI Agent Wood's testimony about undercover buys by a cooperating informant, including how drugs were recorded and retrieved.
Occhiuto argued Wood's testimony implicitly conveyed out-of-court statements by the informant about transactions, violating Crawford/Meises principles.
Occhiuto also challenged the district court's denial of his request to call Victor Bizzell to impeach the informant and to challenge the informant's reliability.
On sentencing, the court relied on drug-weight findings from the presentence report and subsequent lab re-testing; Occhiuto contested weights and the court's calculations.
The First Circuit affirmed both the conviction and the sentence, rejecting the Confrontation Clause challenge, the denial of Bizzell’s testimony, and the sentencing challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause violation	Occhiuto argues Wood's testimony relayed A.J.'s out-of-court statements.	Occhiuto contends the testimony impermissibly conveyed non-testimonial statements of A.J.	No Confrontation Clause violation; testimony based on Wood's own observations and surveillance.
Admission of Bizzell testimony	Bizzell's testimony would reveal A.J.'s truthfulness and undermine the informant.	Bizzell's testimony should be admitted to impeach A.J. and support Occhiuto's defense.	District court did not abuse discretion; hearsay and cumulativeness rules justify excluding Bizzell.
Drug weight for sentencing	Presentence weights (and lab testing) are reliable and properly used for guideline calculations.	Weights from the first chemist should be excluded or questioned; genuine disputes exist over the PSR data.	No clear error; the later lab results and corroborating testimony supported the PSR drug weights.
Substantive reasonableness and Tapia	Sentence is within range and necessary for public protection and deterrence.	Court shortened consideration of rehabilitation; violated Tapia by focusing on incapacitation and not rehabilitative factors.	No Tapia error; sentence within the guideline range and supported by the court's reasoning.

United States v. Meises, 645 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2011) (Confrontation Clause violation based on agent recounting informant's statements)
United States v. Foster, 701 F.3d 1142 (7th Cir. 2012) (agents' own observations can support testimony without relaying out-of-court statements)
United States v. Brown, 500 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (balancing right to present evidence with integrity of the adversary process)
United States v. Levy-Cordero, 67 F.3d 1002 (1st Cir. 1995) (hearsay and admissibility standards; appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (confrontation and defense presentation rights balancing)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (defense right to reliable testimony essential to due process)
United States v. Zapata, 589 F.3d 475 (1st Cir. 2009) (reliability standards for sentencing-related evidence)
Cintron-Echautegui, 604 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (reliability and admissibility of information for sentencing purposes)
United States v. Cyr, 337 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2003) (district court may resolve genuine disputes regarding PSR data)