United States v. Philippeaux
694 F. App'x 838
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Philander Philippeaux was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute/possess with intent to distribute ≥5 kg of cocaine and conspiracy to import ≥5 kg of cocaine; sentenced to 211 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release.
- On appeal to the Second Circuit, Philippeaux challenged: (1) certain testimony by DEA Special Agent Sean Wulff as hearsay; (2) a four-level U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) role enhancement as an organizer/leader; and (3) the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
- Philippeaux did not object at trial to the Wulff testimony and therefore invoked plain-error review on appeal.
- The district court adopted the Presentence Report (PSR), which identified six participants and described Philippeaux’s recruitment, decision-making, and organizational role in 2012–2013 transactions.
- The record contained extensive independent evidence of guilt (cooperator testimony, DEA agents, bank/wire records, surveillance, flights, and communications).
Issues
| Issue | Philippeaux’s Argument | Government’s/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Agent Wulff’s testimony (hearsay) | Testimony contained inadmissible hearsay that was prejudicial and requires a new trial | No timely objection; even if hearsay, admission did not affect substantial rights given overwhelming evidence | No plain error; conviction stands |
| Role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) | District court failed to make specific factual findings and evidence does not support organizer/leader enhancement; 2012 and 2013 deals should be sentenced separately | District court adopted PSR findings listing six participants and specific acts showing organization/management; conspiracy was charged as single conspiracy | Findings were plausible, not clearly erroneous; four-level enhancement affirmed |
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Court failed to adequately consider § 3553(a) factors (age, background, lack of criminal history, disparity concerns) | Court expressly considered § 3553(a), discussed background and downward departure rationale | No procedural error; court considered relevant factors |
| Substantive reasonableness / sentencing disparity | 211-month sentence is unwarranted compared to co-defendants who got 60 and 50 months | Co-defendants were lower-level, accepted responsibility; Philippeaux was organizer and testified falsely at trial | Sentence not substantively unreasonable; disparity justified by differing culpability and conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stevenson, 834 F.3d 80 (2d Cir.) (plain-error standard discussion)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (Sup. Ct.) (plain-error test)
- United States v. Carter, 489 F.3d 528 (2d Cir.) (insufficient findings for role enhancement)
- United States v. Ware, 577 F.3d 442 (2d Cir.) (conclusory findings inadequate for enhancement)
- United States v. Kent, 821 F.3d 362 (2d Cir.) (clear-error standard for sentencing facts)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 764 F.3d 159 (2d Cir.) (plausibility standard for factual findings)
- United States v. Reilly, 76 F.3d 1271 (2d Cir.) (plausibility standard cited)
- United States v. Pattee, 820 F.3d 496 (2d Cir.) (procedural sentencing error principles)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (procedural error and § 3553(a) guidance)
- United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir.) (deferential review for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.) (substantive reasonableness and disparity review)