United States v. Rivera-Ruperto
852 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Rivera-Ruperto participated as an armed security guard in six FBI‑staged "Operation Guard Shack" sham drug deals in 2010; the "drugs" were fake but the FBI staged transactions using multi‑kilogram quantities and required participants to bring firearms.
- He was charged in multiple indictments for conspiracy, attempted possession with intent to distribute, and § 924(c) firearm offenses (including one count for an obliterated serial number firearm); two separate trials followed, yielding convictions in both.
- This appeal concerns convictions and the sentence (126 years, 10 months) from the first trial (four deals consolidated with one other indictment); a second trial produced a consecutive 35‑year term, yielding a combined 161 years, 10 months.
- Pretrial plea negotiations: government offered 14 then 12 years; counsel Aguayo negotiated but Rivera‑Ruperto repeatedly rejected the offers, counsel sought a competency (psychological) exam after observing erratic behavior, which later complicated plea timing; Rivera‑Ruperto later moved under Lafler for reinstatement of the 12‑year offer alleging ineffective assistance.
- At trial the judge instructed generally that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, informed jurors they would make a separate drug‑quantity finding, and submitted quantity questions on the verdict form; the jury returned findings of "5 kilograms or more" for most counts.
- At sentencing the court applied the jury quantity findings (triggering much higher statutory ranges) and stacked consecutive mandatory minimums under § 924(c), and rejected (effectively) sentencing‑manipulation arguments; Rivera‑Ruperto raised an Eighth Amendment gross‑disproportionality challenge to the combined sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rivera‑Ruperto) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance at plea stage (Lafler/Strickland) | Aguayo sought an unnecessary psychiatric exam, misadvised him and failed to secure/notify gov't of acceptance of 12‑year offer, so a 12‑yr plea would have been available but‑for counsel | Counsel reasonably sought exam after observing erratic behavior, advised appropriately about timing and competency risk; Rivera‑Ruperto had repeatedly rejected offers and later refused an 18‑yr offer | Affirmed: no deficient performance and no prejudice — expired offer and Rivera‑Ruperto’s conduct defeated Lafler claim |
| Jury instruction on drug‑quantity burden | Court failed to instruct jury that drug‑quantity findings are elements to be found beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring new trial | Jury was repeatedly instructed on beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard and told they must make quantity findings; verdict form and instructions sufficiently linked burden to quantity finding (Barbour analog) | Affirmed: error existed but not plain/obvious and, in any event, evidence of quantity was overwhelming so no reversal |
| Sentencing‑factor manipulation | FBI used large sham quantities, required firearms, and prolonged/prolific stings to inflate statutory exposure; court must remedy by reducing sentence | Stings inherently involve manipulation; agents used large quantities to make stings realistic and to identify additional conspirators; no outrageous or improper motive shown | Affirmed: defendant failed to prove by preponderance; no clear error in denying manipulation relief |
| Eighth Amendment gross‑disproportionality | Combined 161‑year term (largely 130 years from § 924(c) stacking) is effectively life for a first‑time nonviolent participant in sham deals and is grossly disproportionate | Statutory scheme reflects Congress’s judgment to punish the dangerous gun+drug combination; courts give strong deference to legislatures and § 924(c) stacking has been upheld across circuits | Affirmed (majority): sentence not grossly disproportionate under narrow Eighth Amendment test; dissent would have found violation for a first‑time, non‑recidivist offender |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel extends to plea bargaining; Strickland test applies)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance standard — deficient performance and prejudice)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (holding that facts increasing mandatory minimums are elements for jury determination beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (overwhelming evidence of an element forecloses showing that its omission harmed fairness of proceedings)
- United States v. Barbour, 393 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2004) (similar jury‑instruction context: link between reasonable‑doubt charge and quantity question on verdict form avoided plain error)
- United States v. Delgado‑Marrero, 744 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2014) (Alleyne error remand where quantity submitted later without linking burden of proof)
- United States v. Lucena‑Rivera, 750 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2014) (sentencing‑factor‑manipulation standard; relief reserved for extreme, improper govt. conduct)