United States v. Roberts
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19791
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Roberts was convicted in the Eastern District of New York on drug importation/conspiracy counts tied to JFK airport operations.
- On November 5, 2005, Barbados-flight cocaine, totaling 5,038 grams of 84% purity, was seized from a container Roberts helped unload; wholesale value $121,000 and retail value $403,000.
- Beckford testified that Roberts and others engaged in a long-running drug smuggling scheme through JFK since 2003, with Roberts supervising offload teams.
- Roberts gave proffer statements on November 2, 2006 under a proffer agreement; government later sought to admit excerpts to rebut defense assertions about Beckford’s presence and events.
- Roberts was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment with concurrent terms, plus supervised release and a $3,160,000 forfeiture; he appealed challenging proffer-admission, sentencing enhancements, and forfeiture amount.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction, vacated the forfeiture order, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of proffer statements under coercion and waiver | Roberts argues statements were coercively obtained and the waiver did not apply | Roberts contends coercion and improper waiver bar admission | No reversible error; statements properly admitted under waiver and not coerced |
| Applicability of abuse-of-trust enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 | Government contends enhancement applies due to employer trust | Roberts argues no valid victim or trust relationship justifying the enhancement | Enhancement valid; district court properly treated American Airlines as a victim for § 3B1.3 |
| Forfeiture calculation—retail vs wholesale price multiplier | Government uses retail value to compute proceeds | Retail multiplier may be inappropriate given distribution context | Remanded for factual development to determine whether proceeds were realized at retail or wholesale level; forfeiture order vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2005) (waiver scope of proffer agreements; court discretion to admit rebuttal evidence)
- United States v. Oluwanisola, 605 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2010) (cross-exam questions may not automatically trigger waiver of proffer statements)
- United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2011) (forfeiture may rely on reasonable extrapolations; proof by preponderance)
- United States v. Paul, 634 F.3d 668 (2d Cir. 2011) (plain-error standard for sentencing-related issues)
- United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2005) (waiver breadth and admissibility context)
- United States v. Cusack, 229 F.3d 344 (2d Cir. 2000) (victim status for abuse-of-trust considerations)