United States v. Suarez-Martinez
679 F. App'x 75
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Miguel Suarez-Martinez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire (18 U.S.C. § 371) and to a § 924(c) charge for using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; sentenced to 156 months.
- On appeal he argued (1) a § 371 conspiracy cannot qualify as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c) and (2) his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
- The district court made a factual finding that Suarez-Martinez was an experienced killer-for-hire based on his own statements, informing the sentencing decision.
- The district court considered potential victims located outside the United States when applying the § 3553(a)(2)(C) factor (protecting the public from further crimes).
- Suarez-Martinez did not preserve some objections at sentencing; the panel reviewed those issues for plain error where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 371 conspiracy can be a "crime of violence" under § 924(c) | Suarez-Martinez argued § 371 conspiracy cannot qualify and thus § 924(c) conviction invalid | Government relied on the § 924(c) information and guilty plea | Waived by guilty plea; challenge is non-jurisdictional and thus forfeited |
| Whether the district court clearly erred in finding defendant an experienced killer-for-hire | N/A (defendant disputed the finding) | Court relied on defendant's own statements to support finding | No clear error; factual finding upheld |
| Whether the court erred in considering non-U.S. victims under § 3553(a)(2)(C) | Suarez-Martinez argued the court should not consider individuals outside U.S. when assessing need to protect public | Court considered non-U.S. individuals; defendant did not object below | Reviewed for plain error; no plain error because law on point was unsettled |
| Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable (including disparity claim) | Suarez-Martinez argued sentence was excessive and disparate compared to another defendant | District court considered mitigating factors and disparity argument before imposing sentence | Substantively reasonable; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Garcia, 339 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2003) (guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects)
- United States v. Rubin, 743 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2014) (indictment need only track statutory language to invoke jurisdiction)
- Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1916) (jurisdictional pleading principles)
- United States v. Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2011) (clear-error review of sentencing factual findings)
- United States v. Whab, 355 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2004) (plain-error review where legal question unsettled)
- United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for substantive unreasonableness of sentences)