United States v. Sica
676 F. App'x 81
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Dennis Sica pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic heroin and fentanyl that caused three deaths and was sentenced to 420 months' imprisonment by the S.D.N.Y. district court.
- At plea and sentencing, the government relied on toxicology and witness evidence tying Sica’s distributions to the victims’ fatal overdoses; defense counsel conceded a but-for causation theory during allocution.
- Sica did not challenge the plea’s factual basis in district court; he raises issues on appeal about causation, foreseeability, Guidelines application, and sentence reasonableness.
- The district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(1) (resulting in a Guidelines range of life) based on Sica’s prior felony drug convictions; the court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 420 months.
- On appeal Sica argued (1) the Rule 11 factual basis was insufficient as to causation and foreseeability, (2) the Guidelines were misapplied with respect to “prior similar offense,” and (3) his sentence was substantively and procedurally unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Sica) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of factual basis for causation under Rule 11 | The plea and record (toxicology, witnesses, counsel allocution) support that Sica’s drugs were a but‑for cause of deaths | Sica contends plea only shows but‑for causation and not sole or sufficient causation | Affirmed: Burrage requires only but‑for causation; record supports it and no plain error was shown |
| Need for foreseeability in plea's factual basis | Government contends foreseeability is not a required element; even if it were, record shows it | Sica argues there was no factual basis that deaths were foreseeable to him | Affirmed: No controlling authority requiring foreseeability; circuits reject foreseeability requirement; record supports foreseeability regardless |
| Application of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(1) based on “prior similar offense” language | Government: Guideline mirrors § 841(b) and covers prior felony drug convictions generally; prior convictions were proven at sentencing | Sica: Phrase should be read to require prior narcotics convictions that resulted in death or be established by the offense of conviction | Affirmed: Court rejects narrow reading; even if unsettled, Sica did not show plain error and prior convictions were convincingly established |
| Substantive reasonableness of 420‑month sentence | Sentence below the calculated Guidelines life range is reasonable given facts (deaths, defendant’s conduct) | Sica: He was a low‑level dealer/addict; statutory scheme and Guidelines are overbroad/heightened by media/politics | Affirmed: District court weighed §3553(a) factors; 420 months within permissible range and court would have imposed same sentence under alternate Guideline calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (Sup. Ct.) (but‑for causation suffices for §841(b) death enhancement)
- United States v. Culbertson, 670 F.3d 183 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 11 factual‑basis challenges)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 725 F.3d 271 (2d Cir.) (plain‑error review applies when defendant did not object to plea)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (Sup. Ct.) (defendant must timely attack plea to avoid plain‑error review)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness on appeal)