United States v. Ramon Alvarez
714 F. App'x 671
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ramon Alvarez, a former LAPD detective, pled guilty to one count of making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).
- At sentencing the district court increased Alvarez’s offense level by nine based on an uncharged alleged theft of drug-proceeds money found at a storage unit.
- The court relied in part on an unsworn police interview of Detective Todd Hankel and other evidence the government presented at sentencing.
- Defense counsel declined to call Hankel after the judge indicated Alvarez’s sentence could increase if the defense pursued a hearing and the judge still found Hankel’s account "compelling."
- The Ninth Circuit found the district court applied a lower "substantial evidence" standard (not clear and convincing) when relying on the uncharged theft to enhance the sentence, and also found due process concerns about chilling defense presentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing standard required for enhancement based on uncharged conduct | Alvarez: Due process requires clear and convincing proof because the enhancement had an extremely disproportionate effect | Government: Substantial evidence standard sufficed; some guideline levels should be discounted | Court: Applied clear-and-convincing standard is required; district court plainly erred by using substantial-evidence standard and vacated sentence |
| Whether the enhancement had an "extremely disproportionate" effect | Alvarez: Nine-level increase and near-doubling of sentence show extreme disproportionality | Government: Argued parts of the increase/home confinement should not be counted toward disproportionality | Court: Found factors (guideline departure >4 levels, more than doubling, and creating separate punishable offense) support extreme disproportionality |
| Whether the evidence met clear and convincing standard | Alvarez: Evidence (unsworn interview, impeachment potential, DNA contamination, inconsistent witness statements) insufficient | Government: Relied on Hankel’s account and other facts | Court: Evidence did not meet clear-and-convincing standard; enhancement not adequately supported |
| Whether district court’s comments chilled defense and violated due process | Alvarez: Judge’s warning chilled defense from calling witness, violating due process | Government: No plain error; counsel acquiesced | Court: Court identified chilling risk and due process problem but Alvarez failed plain-error showing on that claim |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jordan, 256 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2001) (plain-error review when defendant fails to object)
- United States v. Valensia, 222 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2000) (Due Process requires clear-and-convincing proof when uncharged conduct causes extremely disproportionate sentence)
- United States v. Hymas, 780 F.3d 1285 (9th Cir. 2015) (totality-of-circumstances test for extreme disproportionality)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain-error and substantial-rights standards)
- Nulph v. Cook, 333 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (defendant must be free from chilling effects that deter challenges to convictions/sentences)
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978) (punishing lawful exercise of rights violates due process)
- United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2011) (general rule against deciding ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
- United States v. Rivera, 682 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2012) (reassignment on remand appropriate when judge’s prior statements may impede impartial resentencing)