United States v. Sepulveda-Hernandez
752 F.3d 22
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant Tomas Sepúlveda-Hernández operated/open-air drug market La Trocha near a basketball court within 100 feet of a youth center in Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, from 2000 to 2008.
- 2008 federal indictment charged distribution of marijuana and crack cocaine; jury convicted on conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and aiding/abetting in distribution, with special verdict finding proximity to a youth center.
- District court increased offense level under USSG §2D1.2(a)(1), sentenced him to 210 months, and imposed a $1,000,000 forfeiture.
- Issues on appeal included whether §860(a) creates an independent offense or a sentencing factor, whether proximity element was proven, and whether 841(a)(1) lesser includes could be entered.
- Court held §860(a) creates an independent offense but the proximity to a youth center was not proven; vacated §860(a) convictions, directed entry of §841(a)(1) convictions, and remanded for resentencing; affirmed forfeiture.
- Concurring opinion cautioned on Alleyne v. United States issues for remand sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §860(a) create an independent offense or a sentencing factor? | Sepúlveda-Hernández argues proximity is a sentencing factor; government argues independent offense. | Defendant contends proximity is not a standalone offense element. | §860(a) creates an independent offense. |
| Was proximity to a youth center proven beyond a reasonable doubt? | Government contends proximity element established by location near court and videos showing minors present. | Defense argues no evidence the facility was intended primarily for minors. | Proximity element not proven; §860(a) convictions vacated. |
| May the court direct entry of convictions under a lesser included offense (§841(a)(1)) via §2106? | Government seeks replacement convictions under §841(a)(1). | Defendant opposes; claims potential prejudice or error. | Yes; §2106 authority allowed entry of §841(a)(1) convictions. |
| Is the forfeiture amount constitutionally sound under the Excessive Fines Clause? | Government asserts amount proportionate given quantity and defendant’s leadership. | Argues forfeiture may be excessive or deprive livelihood. | Forfeiture affirmed; not plain error; amount not grossly disproportionate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1996) (multi-step framework for §2106 lesser-included-offense analyses)
- Osborne, 673 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2012) (holds §860(a) creates independent offense)
- Lee, 242 F. App'x 209 (5th Cir. 2007) (youth-center proximity discussion in TEEN F.L.O.W context)
- Parker, 30 F.3d 542 (4th Cir. 1994) (lesser-included-offense doctrine under §2106 framework)
- Spinney, 65 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 1995) (standard for sufficiency review of preserved challenges)
- Smith, 13 F.3d 383 (1st Cir. 1994) (precedent on §2106 and lesser included offenses)