United States v. Ramirez-Negron
751 F.3d 42
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendants Geovanny Ramírez‑Negrón and Obed Alvarado‑Merced were members of a large Puerto Rico drug conspiracy; Ramírez was an upstream cocaine wholesaler (whose product was "cooked" into crack) and Alvarado was a street seller.
- Both pleaded guilty to conspiracy and substantive distribution counts but reserved the right to contest individualized drug‑quantity attributions for sentencing; Ramírez also contested a leadership enhancement.
- Extensive sentencing hearings relied on FBI/PRPD surveillance, 78 video recordings, agent testimony, cooperators' grand jury testimony, and drug seizures; the district court made conservative, reasoned estimates of quantities attributable/foreseeable to each defendant.
- The district court attributed 4.5 kg (Ramírez) and 3.06 kg (Alvarado) of cocaine base (crack) for Guidelines purposes; Ramírez received 162 months (downward variance), Alvarado 132 months (within Guidelines).
- After oral argument the Supreme Court decided Alleyne; defendants raised an Alleyne-based Sixth Amendment challenge on supplemental briefing, arguing judicial factfinding of drug quantity (by preponderance) improperly increased mandatory minimum exposure.
- The majority affirmed: no Alleyne error because defendants pleaded to the default § 841(a)(1) offense (no mandatory minimums imposed by the judge), and sentencing factfinding for advisory Guidelines does not implicate Alleyne; the court also rejected the defendants' evidentiary and reliability challenges to the sentencing findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne requires jury findings for judge‑found drug quantities used to set sentence | Gov't: Alleyne applies only to facts that raise mandatory minimums; district court only used facts to set advisory Guidelines, not to trigger a statutory minimum | Defendants: Judicial factfinding of drug quantity increased punishment and thus violated Alleyne because quantities were not admitted or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt | Court: No Alleyne error — judicial factfinding for advisory Guidelines that does not alter statutory mandatory minimums is permissible under Alleyne/Booker |
| Whether sentencing relied on unreliable hearsay violating due process (Ramírez) | Gov't: Hearsay was corroborated by agent surveillance, videos, and grand jury transcripts; reliable hearsay is admissible at sentencing | Ramírez: Key evidence (cooperators, lab supervisor statements) was hearsay/double hearsay and unreliable; district court erred by relying on it | Court: Hearsay was sufficiently corroborated by Agent León's direct surveillance and the court's independent review of videos; no due process violation |
| Sufficiency of evidence for leadership enhancement (Ramírez) | Gov't: Evidence showed wholesale supply role, ownership/control of drug points, receipt of heroin profits — supports enhancement | Ramírez: Contested leadership status (though counsel waived challenge at sentencing) | Court: Waived by counsel; alternatively, evidence supports two‑level leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 |
| Sufficiency of quantity attribution to Alvarado (foreseeability and calculation) | Gov't: Agent estimates and video surveillance support conservative quantity calculations and foreseeability over 85 days | Alvarado: Estimates speculative, videos selective, agent relied on hearsay and extrapolation — findings not supported | Court: Calculation used conservative assumptions favorable to Alvarado and was a reasoned estimate grounded in evidence; quantity finding not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (extension of Apprendi; facts increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (Guidelines are advisory; courts may use judicial factfinding to inform advisory sentences)
- United States v. Correy, 570 F.3d 373 (1st Cir. 2009) (approach to attributing foreseeability of conspiracy drug quantities)
- United States v. Harakaly, 734 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 2013) (Alleyne error found where judge determined quantity triggering mandatory minimum after guilty plea without admission)
- United States v. Delgado‑Marrero, 744 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2014) (Alleyne/Apprendi error analysis and requirement of jury finding for mandatory‑minimum triggering facts)
- United States v. Pena, 742 F.3d 508 (1st Cir. 2014) (remedy discussion for Alleyne error; remand for resentencing as typical relief)