United States v. Robles-Alvarez, 874 F.3d 46

Background

Delfin Robles-Alvarez joined a large-scale cocaine smuggling conspiracy led by his cousin Orlando Robles-Ortiz; voyages imported ~100 kg per trip from Caribbean locations.
Prior to the charged St. Martin-based conspiracy, Robles-Ortiz and the appellant participated in a separate Antigua trip to purchase 105 kg of cocaine; that Antigua trip was not named in the indictment.
Indictment charged conspiracy to distribute and import cocaine and to launder proceeds; after a four-day trial the jury convicted Robles-Alvarez on all counts.
The Presentence Report produced a Guidelines range of life imprisonment; defense sought a downward variance based on sentencing disparities with co-defendants (co-defendants received 46–210 months).
District court imposed life imprisonment without addressing the disparity argument; defendant appealed convictions and sentence.

Issues

Issue	Government's Argument	Robles-Alvarez's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict	Robles-Ortiz's testimony plus corroborating evidence (passport stamps, phone calls, other cooperator testimony, lavish purchases) supports convictions	Trial evidence insufficient because only Robles-Ortiz directly testified that they voyaged together	Affirmed — uncorroborated accomplice testimony can suffice if not facially incredible; independent corroboration existed too (passport, calls, other testimony)
Admissibility of Antigua trip evidence (Rule 404(b))	Antigua trip was intrinsic to charged conspiracy (explained formation/relationships) and, even if 404(b) applied, was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial	Admission of prior-bad-act evidence was improper under Rule 404(b)	Affirmed — evidence was intrinsic (part of necessary background) and alternatively admissible under 404(b)/403 balancing
Procedural reasonableness of life sentence (failure to address disparity)	District court considered §3553(a) factors; appellate deference applies	Sentencing court failed to address a potentially persuasive disparity argument comparing his life term to much shorter co-defendant terms	Vacated sentence — procedural error: court did not acknowledge or explain rejection of nonfrivolous disparity argument; remand for resentencing
Whether appellate review must reach substantive reasonableness	Government: where court states it considered §3553(a), appellate presumption may apply	Defendant: court’s silence on disparity requires remand without reaching substantive reasonableness	Court did not reach substantive reasonableness due to procedural error; left substantive sentence determination to district court on remand

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Rivera-Donate, 682 F.3d 120 (1st Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Torres-Galindo, 206 F.3d 136 (1st Cir.) (uncorroborated accomplice testimony may sustain conviction if not facially incredible)
United States v. Aguilar-Aranceta, 58 F.3d 796 (1st Cir.) (two-part test for Rule 404(b) admissibility and Rule 403 balancing)
United States v. Mare, 668 F.3d 35 (1st Cir.) (intrinsic evidence does not trigger Rule 404(b))
United States v. Souza, 749 F.3d 74 (1st Cir.) (intrinsic evidence includes events leading up to charged crime)
United States v. Green, 698 F.3d 48 (1st Cir.) (background evidence to explain co-conspirator trust admissible)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural explanation requirement at sentencing)
Rita v. United States, 551 F.3d 338 (2007) (context matters in sufficiency of sentencing explanation)
United States v. Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514 (1st Cir.) (inference of reasoning from PSR and parties’ arguments in routine cases)
United States v. Ayala-Vazquez, 751 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (discussion of §3553(a)(6) disparities and appellate presumption)
United States v. Reyes-Santiago, 804 F.3d 453 (1st Cir.) (avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities)
United States v. Cirilo-Muñoz, 504 F.3d 106 (1st Cir.) (vacating sentence where court failed to address co-defendant disparity)