Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Selya and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
asserts both that the sentencing court made an erroneous drugquantity determination and that, in all events, the sentence
imposed
was
substantively
unreasonable.
After
careful
BACKGROUND
Because this appeal follows a guilty plea, "we glean the
September 2, 2014.
The
- 2 -
smaller quantities.
He recalled that
some
procedural
maneuvering
(not
relevant
here),
the
USSG
2D1.1(c)(4)
(Drug
Quantity
Table).
The
appellant
of
pills
to
reflect
pills
purchased
for
personal
consumption.2
The sentencing court convened the disposition hearing on
September 22, 2015.
deterrence
(both
individual
and
general)
in
the
ANALYSIS
As a general matter, we review the imposition of a
U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 92 (1st
Cir. 2008). The process is bifurcated. We first determine whether
the sentence imposed is procedurally reasonable (that is, free
from reversible error in its procedural aspects) and then determine
whether it is substantively reasonable.
- 5 -
Drug Quantity.
of
his
sentence.
Our
starting
point
is
See United
States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302, 313 n.7 (1st Cir. 2006).
"In
drug-trafficking
cases
under
the
sentencing
United States
Here, the
error and will disturb it only if, based "on the whole of the
record, we form a strong, unyielding belief that a mistake has
been made."
based
on
individualized
determination
concerning
the
- 6 -
the defendant.
sentencing
purposes,
quantities
of
controlled
such
as
equivalent.
oxycodone
must
be
converted
to
their
marihuana
The Drug
Extrapolating
from these figures, then, the sentencing court held the appellant
responsible for at least 4,967 pills (149 grams equals 149,000
milligrams, which when divided into 30-milligram pills equals
approximately 4,967 pills). Using an 18-month time line, the court
held the appellant responsible for at least 70 pills per week for
18 months.
- 7 -
Second, he challenges
erroneous
personally.
because
it
did
not
exclude
pills
that
he
used
He
the appellant any sales made by his vendors (the Nuez consortium,
Garcia, or Alba) to third partners but, rather, limited its
consideration to sales made to the appellant himself.
The appellant's challenge to the sentencing court's use
of an 18-month time line is equally groundless.
The appellant
This argument
- 8 -
ipse
dixit
supports
it.3
When
faced
with
conflicting
facts
speculative.
See id.
The appellant's last line of attack posits that the
sentencing
court's
drug-quantity
determination
does
not
pass
F.2d 456, 492 (1st Cir. 1993); accord United States v. Marks, 365
F.3d 101, 105-06 (1st Cir. 2004) (holding that sentencing court
was not required to deduct amount of drugs defendant personally
consumed because each pill "was acquired with the intent that it
would or could be distributed").
In an effort to deflect the force of these precedents,
the appellant insists that, in actuality, he was only part of "a
conspiracy of one."
From
that fact he reasons that he was the only person involved with
this specific conspiracy.
- 10 -
unarguable
circumstances,
untenable.
factual
the
basis
for
appellant's
his
plea.
"conspiracy
of
Under
one"
these
claim
is
hint of error let alone any hint of clear error mars the
district
court's
relatively
conservative
drug-quantity
determination.
B.
Substantive Reasonableness.
reasonableness
of
his
sentence.
Because
this
Id. at 92.
Here,
rationale
considered
for
the
the
the
sentencing
sentence.
need
for
court
Among
condign
articulated
other
things,
punishment,
the
plausible
the
court
nature
and
- 12 -
The
court noted that it had adjusted the appellant's base offense level
downward and stated that "[t]he [oxycodone] quantities involved in
this case are simply too great to justify [both] the total offense
level adjustment made by the Court and a substantial variance."
The result, too, is easily defensible.
the
substantive
reasonableness
of
sentence
A challenge to
is
particularly
See United
counter-argument is unconvincing.
We recognize, of course, that in fashioning a sentence
a court must consider "the need to avoid unwarranted sentence
guilty
of
similar
conduct."
18
U.S.C.
3553(a)(6).
Accordingly, we have
legitimate
coconspirators
disparate sentences.
or
concerns
may
codefendants
See id.
arise
receive
if
similarly
inexplicably
v. Reyes-Santiago, 804 F.3d 453, 467 (1st Cir. 2015); United States
v. Mateo-Espejo, 426 F.3d 508, 514 (1st Cir. 2005).
In the case at hand, the sentencing court explicitly
acknowledged
disparit[ies]."
the
"need
to
avoid
unwarranted
sentence
a customer of Johanna Nuez but also had customers of his own, the
court calculated identical guideline ranges for the appellant and
- 14 -
Johanna Nuez.
the slightly reduced sentence in Nuez's case: she received a onelevel departure under USSG 5H1.6 based on her family ties and
responsibilities a departure that the appellant did not seek and
for which he was not eligible.
the two individuals were not similarly situated and, thus, the
claim of sentencing disparity founders.
III.
CONCLUSION
We need go no further. For the reasons elucidated above,
the sentence is
Affirmed.
- 15 -