United States v. Rafael Sanchez
663 F. App'x 160
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Sanchez, a Dominican national residing in the U.S., pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and aggravated identity theft for filing at least 128 fraudulent tax returns that obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars in refunds.
- Plea agreement and change-of-plea acknowledged loss of more than $400,000 but less than $1,000,000 and obligation to full restitution; indictment charged 43 counts, Sanchez pled to counts 1 and 32.
- Presentence Report (PSR) calculated total offense level 26, Criminal History I, Guidelines range 63–78 months on count 1 plus mandatory consecutive 24 months on count 32; PSR computed restitution at $694,237.09 and estimated Sanchez’s net worth and monthly cash flow at $0.00.
- At sentencing the court overruled Sanchez’s objections, adopted an offense level of 26 (by parties’ statements), and imposed 70 months on count 1 plus mandatory consecutive 24 months on count 32 (total 94 months), ordered $694,237.09 restitution with a specific payment plan and waived interest.
- Sanchez appealed, raising three procedural sentencing errors not preserved below; the Third Circuit reviewed for plain error under Rule 52(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sanchez) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court failed to state or adopt final Guidelines calculation on the record | Court erred by not articulating or adopting the PSR’s Guidelines calculation before imposing sentence | Any omission was harmless because the sentence matched the PSR’s Guidelines computations and required statutory terms | Error occurred but was harmless; no relief because outcome unaffected (affirmed) |
| Court failed to verify on the record that Sanchez and counsel read and discussed the PSR | Court violated Rule 32(i)(1)(A) by not explicitly confirming defendant reviewed/discussed PSR (no translation evident) | No prejudice shown; defendant and counsel had opportunity to review and raised objections; failure to elicit verification did not affect outcome | Error occurred but was harmless; no relief because no prejudice shown (affirmed) |
| Court failed to make specific factual findings about Sanchez’s ability to pay mandatory restitution | Mandatory restitution required specific findings about resources and ability to pay | PSR and oral statements (counsel’s representation, dependents noted, loss recited) and detailed payment schedule show court considered financial situation | No error; record shows adequate consideration of finances and proper restitution order (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2014) (en banc) (standard for plain-error review in criminal appeals)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (plain-error framework requires showing error affected substantial rights)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (discussing plain-error review and remedy discretion)
- United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006) (district courts must calculate Guidelines range)
- United States v. Friedman, 658 F.3d 342 (3d Cir. 2011) (requirements for articulating Guidelines on the record)
- United States v. Stevens, 223 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2000) (failure to verify PSR review is error but requires prejudice to warrant relief)
- United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2007) (district court’s consideration of finances can satisfy restitution-findings requirement)