United States v. Wooldridge
851 F.3d 91
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- DEA and local police wiretapped suspects (Dunston, Hernandez, Wooldridge) after controlled buys; ~30,000 intercepted communications and undercover purchases showed repeated procurement and conversion of powder cocaine into crack in 2012.
- All three pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack, reserving the right to a bench trial on whether 280+ grams of crack were reasonably foreseeable to each (which would trigger a 10-year mandatory minimum).
- Eight-day bench trial heard wiretap recordings and Agent Boyle's lay-interpretive testimony about drug slang; district court found beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant was responsible for at least 280 grams of crack.
- At sentencing the court adopted PSRs, classified all three as career offenders, and set guideline ranges based on larger defendant-specific drug-quantity findings (Wooldridge: ≥840 g; Dunston & Hernandez: ≥2,800 g), imposing below-range sentences for each.
- Appeals: defendants challenged (1) admissibility of Boyle’s lay interpretation, (2) sufficiency of evidence on the 280-g element, and (3) various sentencing determinations (including career-offender predicates for Hernandez). The court affirmed convictions and two sentences, remanding Hernandez’s sentence for inadequate proof of predicate offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of DEA agent Boyle's lay-interpretive testimony of drug slang | Gov: Boyle’s long experience and contextual review made his lay interpretations admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 701 | Dunston: Gov. failed to lay adequate foundation tying Boyle’s interpretations to specific usages | Court: Admission proper—Boyle had extensive narcotics/wiretap experience and the district court safeguarded via voir dire and cross-examination; testimony within discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence that ≥280 g was attributable to Dunston | Gov: Wiretaps and Boyle’s explanations connected Dunston to multiple conversions (June 26, June 29), supporting ≥280 g beyond a reasonable doubt | Dunston: No seized drugs; conversion yields uncertain; conclusions speculative | Court: Evidence (calls, statements, conversion yields) supported reasonable inferences; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence that ≥280 g was attributable to Wooldridge | Gov: Wooldridge possessed 93 g and sold ~200 g powder for conversion; he pleaded guilty to conspiracy period predating sales | Wooldridge: Claimed not yet part of conspiracy at time of sale | Court: Wooldridge’s plea fixed conspiracy start; evidence supported attribution of ≥280 g; conviction affirmed |
| Substantive reasonableness of Dunston’s 144-month sentence (below range) | Dunston: Sentence greater than necessary; court relied mechanically on career-offender guideline | Gov: Court provided reasons for significant downward variance | Court: Sentence within expansive universe of reasonableness; court gave plausible rationale and substantial downward variance; affirmed |
| Hernandez’s career-offender enhancement (predicate proof) | Gov: CORI in PSR showed predicates | Hernandez: CORI alone insufficient when objected to; government failed to produce reliable proof at sentencing | Court: District court erred to rely on unproven CORI; government’s appellate proffer too late/insufficient; remand for district-court hearing to prove predicates or resentencing if proof lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Valdivia, 680 F.3d 33 (1st Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Rosado-Pérez, 605 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (law-enforcement witnesses may translate coded drug language)
- United States v. Hoffman, 832 F.2d 1299 (1st Cir. 1987) (interpretation of drug-code language admissible from experienced witness)
- United States v. Albertelli, 687 F.3d 439 (1st Cir. 2012) (foundations required for lay-interpretive testimony)
- United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir. 1993) (defendant-specific attribution of conspiracy drug quantity)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Cintrón-Echautegui, 604 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (relevant-conduct aggregation for coconspirators at sentencing)
- United States v. Bryant, 571 F.3d 147 (1st Cir. 2009) (government must prove predicate convictions reliably for career-offender enhancement)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (erroneous Guidelines range can be materially prejudicial)