United States v. Rodriguez
731 F.3d 20
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Eddie Rodríguez was convicted by a jury of multiple drug offenses tied to a drug point in the San Antonio Public Housing Project (Carioca) in Guayama, Puerto Rico. Two substantive counts (heroin and cocaine) were vacated on appeal for lack of post-majority evidence; conspiracy and crack/marijuana convictions stood.
- At original sentencing the PSR attributed over 4.5 kg of crack (base level 38); the district court instead used lower quantities and sentenced Rodríguez to 188 months. This Court remanded for resentencing after vacatur of two counts.
- On remand the district court found the conspiracy sold ~60 grams of crack per day and that Rodríguez could be held accountable for 21.9 kg during a year of involvement, but then selected a much smaller individualized quantity (280–840 grams) to set a base offense level of 32 and imposed 151 months (bottom of range).
- Rodríguez appealed the resentencing, arguing (1) procedural error under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (failure to explicitly consider § 3553(a) factors and state reasons under § 3553(c)), and (2) errors in drug-quantity attribution including lack of individualized finding, clear-error in attribution, and unreliability of the evidence used to extrapolate quantity.
- The First Circuit held the court erred procedurally in not explicitly following the § 3553 sequencing and stating reasons, but on plain-error review found no reasonable probability a proper procedure would have yielded a more favorable sentence; it also held the district court made an individualized, not a mere conspiracy-wide, drug-quantity finding and that the extrapolation was a permissible, conservative estimate supported by reliable trial testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Rodríguez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural error under § 3553 (failure to explicitly consider § 3553(a) and state reasons under § 3553(c)) | Court failed to follow required sequencing and did not state reasons for choosing sentence within guideline range; reversible error | Any procedural defects were harmless; record shows the court implicitly considered § 3553 factors and explained its balancing; no reasonable probability of a different sentence | Procedural error occurred but, under plain-error review, no relief because no reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome on remand |
| Requirement of individualized drug-quantity attribution | District court improperly applied conspiracy-wide quantity without individualized finding attributing amount to Rodríguez | Court made individualized finding that amounts during his participation were reasonably foreseeable to him | Held that district court made an individualized finding; not automatic conspiracy-wide attribution |
| Clear error in finding foreseeability/scope (pre- vs post-majority acts) | Evidence does not support that all crack sales (esp. post-majority) were foreseeable or within his agreement | Pre-majority roles (runner, seller, enforcer) and ratification post-majority support foreseeability; even pre-majority alone yields high base level | Court declined to resolve fine line for post-majority scope but found pre-majority conduct alone supported the higher base level; no clear error in individualized finding |
| Reliability of evidence and extrapolation (60 g/day estimate) | Extrapolation from witness testimony is unreliable and speculative | Extrapolation is conservative, based on unrebutted trial testimony and expert estimate per vial; permissible for sentencing under guidelines | Extrapolation was reasonable and conservative; district court did not abuse discretion or commit clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Díaz, 670 F.3d 332 (1st Cir.) (background and prior appellate disposition)
- United States v. Mercado, 412 F.3d 243 (1st Cir. 2005) (court views facts in light most favorable to verdict following conviction)
- United States v. Colón-Solís, 354 F.3d 101 (1st Cir. 2004) (requirement of individualized drug-quantity finding for conspirators)
- United States v. Cintrón-Echautegui, 604 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (de novo review of legal question; clear-error for factual quantity findings)
- United States v. Laboy, 351 F.3d 578 (1st Cir. 2003) (difference between Pinkerton liability and sentencing relevant conduct; reasonable estimate suffices)
- United States v. Marquez, 699 F.3d 556 (1st Cir. 2012) (permissibility of extrapolation from known transactions)
- United States v. Correa-Alicea, 585 F.3d 484 (1st Cir. 2009) (upholding inexact quantity determinations based on conservative, reliable estimates)
- United States v. Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514 (1st Cir. 2006) (endorsing sequential approach: compute guideline range, then consider § 3553(a) factors)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (district court may consider § 3553(a) after guideline calculation)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requirement to state reasons aids public confidence and appellate review)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (co-conspirator liability for foreseeable acts)
- United States v. Mills, 710 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2013) (district court has broad discretion to assess reliability of sentencing evidence)
- United States v. Welch, 15 F.3d 1202 (1st Cir. 1993) (discussing inclusion of pre-majority conduct in quantity where supported by evidence)
- United States v. Flores, 572 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2009) (post-majority ratification permits consideration of pre-majority acts for sentencing)
- United States v. Gibbs, 182 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1999) (same principle regarding pre-majority conduct)