United States v. Reyes-Rivera
812 F.3d 79
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Reyes-Rivera led a Puerto Rico–based Ponzi scheme defrauding over 230 victims of about $22 million.
- He pleaded guilty in 2012 to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud; sentencing in 2013 with concurrent terms (60 months on wire fraud conspiracy; 242 months on bank fraud).
- The plea agreement calculated a guideline range of 121–151 months; government recommended 72–136 months; restitution sought was $22 million.
- The district court imposed 60 months and 242 months, plus a seven-month upward variance and restitution of $10,629,021.01.
- Jeffrey Reyes-Rivera, his brother, pled guilty to wire fraud conspiracy and received a shorter sentence; Reyes-Rivera argued his sentence was disproportionate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of trust enhancement validity | Reyes-Rivera contends no professional/private trust existed. | No discretion or misuse justified the two-point enhancement. | Enhancement correctly applied; Reyes-Rivera exercised substantial authority and used trust to facilitate the scheme. |
| Sophisticated means enhancement | Argues lack of basis for using sophisticated means. | Acknowledges use of multiple entities and accounts to conceal funds; not error to include. | No error; district court properly found concealment across entities and accounts. |
| Overlapping (double counting) enhancements | Argues improper double counting of enhancements. | Waiver argument; disputes but concedes possible; seeks downward adjustment. | No plain error; enhancements serve different purposes and were properly applied. |
| Cooperation adjustment (5K1.1) applicability | Requests consideration of cooperation to reduce sentence. | No government motion under 5K1.1; court need not explicitly state consideration of cooperation. | 5K1.1 inapplicable; court properly considered §3553(a) factors without explicit motion. |
| Substantive reasonableness: disparity and upward variance | Sentence overly harsh relative to co-defendants and similar cases; claims disparity and mandatory-base misperception. | Distinct role and conduct justify harsher sentence; variance supported by victim impact. | Disparity and variance upheld; district court provided plausible, defensible rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (two-step review of sentencing: procedural and substantive reasonable)
- United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305 (1st Cir. 2014) (bases for drawing facts from plea, PSR, and sentencing transcript)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (standard for sentencing procedure and justification)
- United States v. Lilly, 13 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1994) (purpose and limits of overlapping enhancements)
- United States v. García-Ortiz, 792 F.3d 184 (1st Cir. 2015) (addressing disparity considerations within same district)