United States v. Troncoso
691 F. App'x 47
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Juan Pablo Mamalejo Troncoso convicted after a reverse-sting in which co-conspirators planned to rob what they believed was a warehouse holding large quantities of cocaine; no real drugs were present.
- Charged and convicted of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and conspiracy to distribute/possess with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846).
- District Court sentenced Troncoso to 132 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release, a below-Guidelines term.
- At sentencing the court found: the conspirators contemplated ~40 kg of cocaine; a low-end value estimate was accepted after an evidentiary hearing; and Troncoso’s DNA was on a firearm recovered from a car used in the planned robbery.
- Troncoso sought (1) reductions for minimal/minor role, (2) reversal of factual findings about quantity/value and firearm use, (3) relief for sentencing-entrapment/manipulation, and (4) elimination of a $100,000 forfeiture order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Troncoso) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantity of cocaine attributable | Evidence supports ~40 kg contemplated by conspirators | Court erred; record insufficient to prove quantity/value | Affirmed: district court reasonably found 40 kg contemplated; accepted low value after hearing |
| Firearm used in connection with offense | DNA on recovered firearm ties Troncoso to weapon | Court erred; insufficient to show firearm connection | Affirmed: DNA on firearm supported finding of possession in connection with offense |
| Minor/minimal participant reduction | Defendant’s role comparable to others; no entitlement | Troncoso was a minor participant and should get reduction | Denied: district court’s role assessment not clearly erroneous; lack of planning/organizing alone insufficient |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Below-Guidelines sentence justified by § 3553(a) factors | Sentence was substantively unreasonable | Affirmed: below-Guidelines term and offense characteristics make sentence within permissible range |
| Sentencing entrapment/manipulation | Government conduct not outrageous; doctrines not established here | Government’s conduct was outrageous; entrapment/manipulation warrant relief | Denied: Troncoso presented no showing of outrageous official conduct; even if doctrines recognized, they would not apply |
| Forfeiture order ($100,000) | Forfeiture was proper | Order lacked factual basis | Modified: $100,000 forfeiture eliminated |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. United States, 839 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for sentencing appeals)
- Cavera v. United States, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (procedural and substantive sentencing review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (reasonableness standard and procedural errors at sentencing)
- Dorvee v. United States, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.) (substantive reasonableness review)
- Shonubi v. United States, 998 F.2d 84 (2d Cir.) (role-in-the-offense/minor participant assessment)
- Garcia v. United States, 920 F.2d 153 (2d Cir.) (drug courier not entitled to minor-role reduction)
- Cromitie v. United States, 727 F.3d 194 (2d Cir.) (discussing sentencing entrapment/manipulation doctrines)