United States v. Sanchez
679 F. App'x 81
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Francisco Sanchez pleaded guilty (no plea agreement) to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); originally sentenced Dec. 19, 2013.
- District court calculated a Guidelines total offense level of 25 (base level 24 for two prior controlled-substance convictions; +2 for stolen firearm; +2 for obstruction; -3 acceptance), criminal history category V, Guidelines range 100–120 months; sentenced to 84 months.
- Judgment was vacated (with consent) because counsel failed to file a requested appeal; resentencing occurred Oct. 26, 2015, after Sanchez challenged whether his New York drug convictions qualified as "controlled substance offenses."
- District court found New York Penal Law § 220.31 criminalizes only "bona fide" offers to sell (requiring intent and ability), so Sanchez’s prior convictions qualified under the Guidelines; recalculated Guidelines remained 100–120 months.
- At resentencing the court imposed an 80‑month term (slightly below prior sentence) based on post-offense rehabilitation; Sanchez also challenged a two-level obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sanchez’s prior NY drug convictions qualify as "controlled substance offenses" under the Guidelines | Government: New York convictions are crimes of sale/offering and thus count as controlled-substance offenses | Sanchez: NY § 220.31 criminalizes "mere offers" that do not fit the Guidelines' definition of controlled-substance offenses | Court: NY law requires a "bona fide" offer (intent and ability); convictions qualify under the modified categorical approach, so they count |
| Whether the district court erred applying a 2-level obstruction enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1) | Government: Record supports a finding of willful obstruction or attempted obstruction related to the offense | Sanchez: No factual basis; the conduct did not affect investigation/prosecution | Court: No plain error; factual predicate established or harmless (sentence would be unchanged) |
| Whether vacatur/resentencing due to counsel’s failure to file requested appeal affected sentencing authority | Government: Resentencing appropriate and within court’s authority | Sanchez: Implicit challenge tied to resentencing consequences | Court: Vacatur and resentencing were proper; original Guidelines analysis reaffirmed and sentence adjusted based on rehabilitation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Savage, 542 F.3d 959 (2d Cir. 2008) (modified categorical approach and burden on government to show predicate offense)
- Pascual v. Holder, 723 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) (New York law criminalizes only "bona fide" offers to sell narcotics)
- People v. Mike, 92 N.Y.2d 996 (N.Y. 1998) (interpreting NY sale/offer statute to require a bona fide offer with intent and ability)
- United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2009) (harmlessness standard where sentencing error would not change the sentence)