128 F.4th 358
1st Cir.2025Background
- Guillermo Vasquez-Landaver was sentenced in 2016 to 120 months in prison, followed by 60 months of supervised release for offenses related to MS-13 gang activity.
- His supervised release began in February 2020, with conditions to abstain from drugs/alcohol, report to a probation officer, and remain in Maine unless approved to travel.
- The probation officer petitioned to revoke his supervised release in 2023, alleging numerous violations, including drug possession and travel without permission.
- One violation contested: whether Vasquez-Landaver, during an October 2021 incident, possessed cocaine with intent to furnish it after allegedly propositioning a woman and possessing cocaine packaged for distribution.
- The district court found sufficient evidence of intent to distribute based both on the quantity (more than two grams, allowing a statutory inference under Maine law) and the packaging, and imposed a 60-month sentence for a Grade A violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability of drug weight evidence | Drug weight and packaging show intent to furnish | No reliable evidence separated cocaine from packaging | No clear error in finding >2g cocaine owned |
| Applicability of statutory intent presumption | Statutory presumption applies above 2 grams | Can't use presumption without clear evidence of weight | Presumption properly applied |
| Sufficiency of evidence for intent to distribute | Evidence (packaging, offer to woman) shows intent | No direct evidence of intent to furnish | Sufficient circumstantial evidence |
| Classification of supervised release violation (Grade) | Violation is Grade A under guidelines | Should not be Grade A without reliable proof | Grade A violation classification affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Teixeira, 62 F.4th 10 (1st Cir. 2023) (district court credited officer testimony; factfinder's decision is reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Franklin, 51 F.4th 391 (1st Cir. 2022) (clear error standard defined; factual findings will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous)
- United States v. Padilla-Galarza, 990 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2021) (explains appellate review of factual findings)
- United States v. Carrasco, 540 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2008) (choosing between plausible interpretations is not clear error)
- United States v. Romain, 393 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2004) (district court's credibility findings owed deference)