United States v. Zavala-Marti
715 F.3d 44
1st Cir.2013Background
- Zavala challenged a life sentence for involvement in a Puerto Rico drug trafficking operation; he pled guilty to all counts on the first day of trial.
- The district court imposed a general life sentence across nine counts, not tied to specific counts, and relied on an ex parte probation-office meeting.
- The court calculated a base offense level of 34, added enhancements for proximity to a protected location, firearms, obstruction, and leadership, yielding a 360-month-to-life guidelines range.
- The court noted a prison-incident discipline as an aggravating factor and sentenced to life without linking to individual counts; Count Ten forfeiture was dismissed.
- On appeal, Zavala argued: (1) improper general sentence, (2) reliance on ex parte information, (3) failure to explain why the top of the range was chosen, and (4) failure to address disparity. The First Circuit vacated and remanded the sentence, addressing the first two claims and noting remand for resentencing before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General life sentence on multiple counts | Zavala: general sentence exceeds any single count | Zavala: improper to impose life without per-count basis | Remand for per-count resentencing; general life term invalid |
| Ex parte information used in sentencing | Zavala: ex parte info tainted sentencing | Prosecution: information properly considered | Remand; if used again, defendant must be given notice and opportunity to respond |
| Explanation of sentence within guidelines range | Zavala: court must explain why top of range chosen | Court may justify but did not in first proceeding | Not reached; remand provides opportunity to address |
| Disparity argument | Zavala: court failed to provide reasoning on disparity | Disparity claim not properly resolved | Not reached; remand provides opportunity to address |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (plain error in using undisclosed quantities; Apprendi framework)
- United States v. Berzon, 941 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1991) (right to comment on PSR information; due process safeguards)
- United States v. Craven, 239 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2001) (remand for resentencing when sentencing issue tainted by ex parte matters)
- United States v. Moynagh, 566 F.2d 799 (1st Cir. 1977) (separate sentencing on each count preferred; overruled on other grounds)
- United States v. Fernández-Hernández, 652 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2011) (procedural review for sentencing decisions)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (FSA penalties apply to offenders sentenced after act's effect)
- United States v. Leahy, 668 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2012) (procedural review of sentencing determinations)
- Cotton v. United States, Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (established framework for plain-error review in sentencing)