United States v. Sabillon-Umana
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23045
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant Sabillon-Umana was sentenced for participation in a drug conspiracy; the district court treated him as a minor participant but adopted a guidelines base offense level of 32.
- At sentencing the court solicited and accepted a probation officer’s reconstruction that attributed 1.5 kg of cocaine and 1.5 kg of heroin to defendant based on $27,080 in wire transfers and an assumed $500 profit per ounce.
- The appellate court found the district court reversed the proper order of operations by selecting a guidelines target first and then finding facts to support it.
- Mathematical error: $27,080 ÷ $500 per ounce equals ~54.16 ounces (1.5 kg) total, not 1.5 kg of each drug; that error would yield a base offense level 30 (not 32).
- Separately, the prosecutor misadvised the court that only the government could determine the extent of a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1; the district court adopted that incorrect view and limited its own departure authority.
- The court concluded both errors were legal and plain, affecting substantial rights and the integrity of sentencing; the case was remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may select a guidelines sentence benchmark before making factual findings about drug quantity (order of operations) | Sabillon-Umana: court must find facts (agreed/ jury/ court) before calculating guidelines; reversing order is legal error | Government: defendant waived any challenge to the math and analysis | Court: Reversing order was error; facts must be found before setting guidelines benchmark |
| Whether the court’s factual findings (1.5 kg each of heroin and cocaine) were supported by the record/math | Sabillon-Umana: math doesn’t support separate 1.5 kg findings; amount attributable likely 1.5 kg total (base level 30) | Government: waived initially, later suggested appellate court could instead find all sales were heroin to justify level 32 | Court: Math error is obvious; appellate court will not make new fact findings to support sentence |
| Whether the prosecutor’s statement that only government can determine §5K1.1 relief is correct and whether the district court may rely on that | Sabillon-Umana: court decides appropriate departure for assistance; prosecutor misstates law | Government: relied on invited error and argues no remand needed; also argued error was not preserved | Court: Prosecutor’s view is wrong; district court erred in deferring to government; error was plain and affected rights |
| Whether plain error review nonetheless permits affirmance (i.e., no remand) | Sabillon-Umana: plain error standard satisfied; remand required | Government: defendant failed to object; alternative factual findings could salvage sentence; no remand needed | Court: Plain error satisfied (obvious guideline and §5K1.1 errors) and no clear indication error did not affect sentence; remand for resentencing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (advisory Guidelines provide a starting point for sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts must tailor sentences to individual defendants and may vary from Guidelines)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (post-Booker framework for advisory Guidelines)
- United States v. Green, 175 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 1999) (attribution rules for conspiracy sentencing)
- United States v. Figueroa-Labrada, 720 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2013) (procedural steps for Guidelines calculation)
- United States v. Krejcarek, 453 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2006) (court, not government, determines extent of §5K1.1 departure)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for plain error review)
- United States v. Rosales-Miranda, 755 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2014) (obvious Guidelines errors typically satisfy plain-error prongs)
- United States v. Meacham, 567 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2009) (discussing plain error and Guidelines misapplication)
- United States v. Knight, 266 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2001) (Guidelines’ central role in sentencing and presumptive effect on plain-error analysis)