United States v. Samuel David Alvarado
712 F. App'x 865
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Samuel Alvarado led the Latin Kings and supervised large narcotics distribution; law enforcement intercepted extensive phone activity and wiretaps yielded over 11,000 relevant calls.
- He was charged by superseding indictment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base (Count 1), heroin (Count 2), and cocaine (Count 3) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846.
- The Government filed a § 851 enhancement notice, creating a statutory minimum sentence of 240 months for Count 1 due to a prior Florida cocaine conviction.
- Alvarado pled guilty to all three counts under a written plea agreement, with both sides agreeing to jointly recommend the 240-month mandatory minimum.
- The PSR assigned base offense level 32 (7,718.42 kg marijuana equivalent) and added enhancements for weapon possession (2 levels), leadership (4 levels), and obstruction (2 levels), with a 3-level acceptance of responsibility reduction, yielding a total level of 37.
- At sentencing, Alvarado withdrew most objections to the PSR but maintained an objection to the base offense level; district court overruled objections and imposed 240 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the base offense level was correctly calculated. | Alvarado contends the cocaine base amount was overstated. | Alvarado foregrounds the excessive base quantity attributed to him. | Harmless error: when a mandatory minimum applies, Guideline errors are harmless. |
| Whether the government’s and court’s application of enhancements was proper. | Government argues PSR-supported enhancements should stand. | Alvarado withdrew most objections to enhancements; if not withdrawn, challenges fail. | Objections to weapon, leadership, and obstruction were waived by withdrawal; remaining arguments without merit. |
| Whether the single remaining base-level objection has merit. | N/A (No explicit argument beyond base level implicated). | N/A | Court found the cited paragraph properly referred to cocaine base based on the underlying conversation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2005) (harmlessness when mandatory minimum applied, Guideline errors ignored)
- United States v. Chirino-Alvarez, 615 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2010) (guidelines calculations may be deemed harmless if mandatory minimum applies)
- United States v. Westry, 524 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2008) (guidelines errors harmless where statutory penalty enforced)
- United States v. Cobb, 842 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2016) (waiver of sentencing objections on appeal when objections withdrawn in district court)
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (arguments not raised on appeal abandoned on review)
- United States v. Monzo, 852 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2017) (clear error review standard for factual findings in PSR context)