United States v. Ortiz-Carrasco
863 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- In June 2014 Ortiz‑Carrasco and a confederate smuggled 20 Haitian migrants on an overloaded, unsealed yola without life jackets from the Dominican Republic toward Puerto Rico; rough seas and nightfall increased risk.
- Coast Guard aircraft tracked the vessel; when a cutter arrived and its launch approached, the yola began taking on water and capsized; 21 aboard, 20 rescued (including the two smugglers), one migrant (Georges Yvon) drowned.
- Ortiz‑Carrasco pleaded guilty to unlawfully attempting to bring aliens into the United States, 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(i).
- The PSR recommended a 10‑level enhancement under USSG §2L1.1(b)(7)(D) because a person died during the offense; resulting Guidelines range was 70–87 months, and the district court imposed a variant 57‑month sentence.
- At sentencing the defendant argued the enhancement required a showing of causation (proximate cause); the district court ruled the enhancement applied and found a causal connection and foreseeable risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USSG §2L1.1(b)(7)(D) requires any causation showing to apply a death‑related enhancement | Gov: read literally; no separate causation requirement beyond death during the offense (or, alternatively, at least but‑for causation via §1B1.3) | Ortiz‑Carrasco: §2L1.1(b)(7)(D) must include a causation/proximate‑cause requirement; government had not proven he caused the death | The court avoided definitively resolving the circuit split; but held the enhancement applied here under any standard (no‑requirement, but‑for, causally‑connected/proximate, or foreseeability) |
Key Cases Cited
- Privitera v. Curran, 855 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2017) (courts should avoid deciding unsettled issues unnecessary to the case)
- United States v. De La Cruz‑García, 842 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016) (noting circuit split on causation for §2L1.1(b)(7)(D))
- United States v. Cardena‑Garcia, 362 F.3d 663 (10th Cir. 2004) (reading §2L1.1(b)(7)(D) to contain no causation requirement)
- United States v. Ramos‑Delgado, 763 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2014) (reading §2L1.1(b)(7)(D) with §1B1.3 to require but‑for causation)
- United States v. Flores‑Flores, 356 F.3d 861 (8th Cir. 2004) (endorsing a causally‑connected/proximate‑cause standard for death‑related enhancement)
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) (but‑for causation is the minimum requirement for legal causation)