United States v. Valdez-Vazquez
874 F.3d 778
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Carbajal-Váldez and two crewmembers were interdicted off Puerto Rico with ~1,434 kg of cocaine; police found bricks in plain view and arrested all three.
- At interdiction Carbajal identified himself as the vessel's captain; probation report recorded this admission and detailed his role procuring, steering, and transporting the vessel.
- Carbajal pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 5+ kg of cocaine under a plea agreement that contemplated a base offense level of 38, acceptance-of-responsibility and potential safety-valve reductions; the government agreed to recommend a within-guidelines sentence but reserved no position on criminal history.
- The PSI recommended a two-level captain enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(3)(C); Carbajal did not timely file a written objection to the PSI but contested the enhancement at sentencing.
- The district court applied the captain enhancement (raising Carbajal’s guideline range) and sentenced him to 168 months; his codefendants received 135 months without the enhancement.
- Carbajal appealed, arguing (1) the captain enhancement was unsupported and (2) the government breached the plea agreement by its statements at sentencing and by defending the enhancement on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Carbajal) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in applying the two-level "captain" enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(3)(C) | The enhancement was supported by the PSI, Carbajal’s admission that he was the captain, and his conduct procuring, steering, and directing the voyage | The admission of the title alone is insufficient; enhancement requires proof of functions, and Carbajal contested the factual basis | Affirmed — record (PSI + hearing) supported the enhancement; no clear error in finding he acted as captain |
| Whether the government breached the plea agreement by (a) acknowledging facts and guideline calculations at sentencing and (b) defending the sentence on appeal | Government must be candid at sentencing; its factual answers and acknowledgment of PSI calculations were proper; defending the sentence on appeal is not barred by the Agreement | Government improperly prompted discussion, breached promise by supporting the enhancement at sentencing and on appeal | Affirmed — no breach: prosecutor’s candor to court was permissible; Agreement did not bar appellate defense of a lawful sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nuñez, 852 F.3d 141 (1st Cir. 2017) (standards for reviewing sentences and factual findings)
- United States v. Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir. 2015) (deference and standards for guideline interpretation and factfinding)
- United States v. McDowell, 918 F.2d 1004 (1st Cir. 1990) (preference for explicit sentencing findings but implicit adoption of PSI allowed)
- United States v. Van, 87 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) (implicit adoption of PSI findings can sustain enhancement)
- United States v. Guerrero, 114 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 1997) (upholding pilot/captain-type enhancements based on role and conduct)
- United States v. Almonte-Nuñez, 771 F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 2014) (prosecutor’s dual obligations at sentencing and limits on plea-breach claims)
- United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (balancing prosecutor’s duty to the court and to plea commitments)
- United States v. Colón, 220 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2000) (government may defend a lawful sentence on appeal despite plea limitations)