United States v. Sisto Bernal
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16864
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Consolidated appeal from four Indiana gang cases involving the Almighty Latin Kings Nation and a larger drug-trafficking ring connected to nineteen homicides.
- Defendant Martin Anaya went to trial on racketeering conspiracy, drug conspiracy, and murder-related charges, facing a potential death or life sentence; he was convicted only of racketeering and drug conspiracy.
- Defendant Oscar Gonzalez and co-defendants Sisto Bernal and Dante Reyes pleaded guilty with waivers of appellate rights; their waivers were reviewed and deemed enforceable.
- Anaya’s sentence relied in part on a finding that he was responsible for Campos’ murder, an acquitted conduct, and on a drug-quantity finding exceeding jury certainty.
- The district court attributed drugs distributed by co-conspirators to Anaya for guideline calculations, based on leadership role and foreseeable scope of conspiracy.
- The court later identified a technical error: Anaya’s racketeering conviction could not exceed twenty years, prompting a remand for judgment correction; other appeals were dismissed or granted limited relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acquitted conduct used for sentencing | Anaya contends the sentence rests on murder finding of Campos (acquitted conduct) | Anaya argues Acquitted conduct cannot raise maximum sentence | Sentence valid; acquitted conduct permissible at sentencing |
| Drug-quantity attribution | Anaya argues jury did not determine the exact quantity; minimal beyond five kilograms against him | District court may use preponderance to attribute aggregate conspiracy quantity | District court may base sentence on aggregate quantity under §2D1.1(c) within statutory range |
| Substantive reasonableness and disparity | Anaya claims unwarranted disparity; argues co-defendants received shorter terms | Disparity justified by cooperation (or lack thereof) and Guideline framework | Disparity warranted; within Guidelines; challenged assertion foreclosed by case law |
| waiver enforceability and plea colloquy | Gonzalez, Bernal, Reyes contend waiver defeats appeals; Reyes counsel questions plea colloquy | Waivers enforceable; Reyes’ colloquy adequate under Alcala; Frye not controlling here | Waivers enforceable; Reyes’ colloquy adequate; Anders briefs for Gonzalez and Bernal granted; appeals dismissed or limited |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 144 (1997) (acquitted conduct may be considered at sentencing)
- United States v. Horne, 474 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2007) (acquittal does not bar consideration of related conduct at sentencing)
- United States v. Alcala, 678 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2012) (colloquy adequacy; valid guilty plea despite limited questioning)
- United States v. Frye, 738 F.2d 196 (7th Cir. 1984) (colloquy sufficiency depends on facts; not every yes/no suffices)
- United States v. Zitt, 714 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2013) (plea waivers enforceable when knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Boscarino, 437 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2006) (cooperation can justify sentencing disparity)
- United States v. Medina, 728 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2013) (scope of drug quantity attribution within Guideline ranges)
- United States v. Seymour, 519 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2008) (reasonably foreseeable quantity attributable to co-conspirators)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (mandatory-minimum enhancements require jury factfinding)