United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-1853
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
JULIO PÉREZ-RUIZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. José Antonio Fusté, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Siler,* Senior Circuit Judge,
and Saris,** District Judge.
Bruce J. McGiverin, by appointment of the court, for
appellant.
Germán A. Rieckehoff, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, and Nelson Pérez-Sosa,
Assistant United States Attorney, Senior Appellate Attorney, were
on brief for appellee.
August 26, 2005
*
Of the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
**
Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
BOUDIN, Chief Judge. Julio Perez-Ruiz ("Perez") was
indicted in June 2000 for conspiring to distribute heroin, cocaine
and cocaine base and in July 2001 was convicted after a jury trial.
Because of evidence at trial that Perez had participated in the
murder of a dealer who had broken with the ring, the district court
found that the maximum sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines was
life imprisonment and imposed this sentence upon Perez, who
appealed both from his conviction and the sentence. On appeal,
this court affirmed the conviction but remanded for re-sentencing.
United States v. Perez-Ruiz, 353 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003), cert.
denied, 541 U.S. 1005 (2004) ("Perez-Ruiz I").
The reason for the remand was that the guideline sentence
imposed on Perez exceeded the statutory maximum that could be
imposed under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Absent
a finding either of prescribed amounts of drugs or of death or
serious bodily injury, a conspiracy to distribute heroin, cocaine
and cocaine base (or any one of them alone) has a maximum sentence
of twenty years' imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846
(2000). Under Apprendi, that finding must be made by the jury
because it enlarges the statutory maximum. See United States v.
Eirby, 262 F.3d 31, 36-37 (1st Cir. 2001).
Under subsection (A) of section 841(b)(1), the amounts of
the three drugs charged in the Perez indictment (or any one of
them) would have permitted a life sentence, but the jury
-2-
instructions did not require the jury to find specific amounts in
order to convict, nor were there special verdict findings. And
although subsection (C) also permits a maximum sentence of life
imprisonment where death results from the drug crime, again the
jury made no determination that such a death had occurred. The
Apprendi objection had been preserved and, given that the trial
evidence as to drug quantity was not overwhelming, we refused to
find the Apprendi error harmless. Perez-Ruiz I, 353 F.3d at 18.
The case was therefore remanded to the district court for
re-sentencing up to a maximum of twenty years. On May 20, 2004,
the district court re-sentenced Perez, imposing a sentence of 235
months. The district judge computed the guideline range as 188-235
months based upon the quantity of drugs he found attributable to
Perez and further enhancements for use of a firearm and Perez'
supervisory status. Under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738
(2005), these findings may be made by the judge alone. Perez
appeals again to challenge this new sentence on several different
grounds.
Perez' first argument is that the true statutory maximum
is not twenty years but only five--the maximum that applies if the
drug involved in the conspiracy is marijuana of no specified
amount. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D). The first difficulty with this
argument is that we determined on the prior appeal, in the face of
the same argument, that twenty years was the correct maximum.
-3-
Perez-Ruiz I, 353 F.3d at 15 n.2. Although the governing law of
the case doctrine arguably permits us to reexamine our own prior
determination at a later stage of the same case (if we deem that
appropriate), United States v. Moran, 393 F.3d 1, 7-8 (1st Cir.
2004), it will soon be apparent that there is no basis for doing so
here.
The crime charged in the indictment was a conspiracy to
distribute heroin, cocaine and cocaine base, and the jury was
instructed that it was this conspiracy that had to be found in
order to convict. The indictment also referred to three episodes
involving marijuana; but they were not charged as objects of the
conspiracy. The jury instructions mentioned marijuana, along with
heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine, as controlled substances, but
the jury instructions thereafter expressly identified the
conspiracy at issue as an agreement to distribute heroin, cocaine
and cocaine base and did not include marijuana.
At trial, there was some evidence as to marijuana
presented, including description of a delivery of the drug to
Perez' drug point, but also evidence of the hard drugs charged in
the indictment. In order to convict, the jury had to find that the
conspiracy was directed to the hard drugs, not marijuana; strictly
speaking, it had to conclude that all three hard drugs were objects
of the conspiracy because the indictment charged in the
conjunctive. See United States v. Soto-Beniquez, 356 F.3d 1, 48-50
-4-
(1st Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1074 (2004). In all
events, there is no realistic chance that, in convicting under this
indictment and these instructions, the jury constructively amended
the indictment by convicting Perez solely for a marijuana
conspiracy--itself never charged.
Perez' next argument is that the district judge violated
the Sixth Amendment by himself making the determinations as to drug
quantity and other enhancements, and that the remedial holding of
Booker violates the ex post facto and due process clauses of the
Constitution. U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3; Id. amend. V.
Although arguably this claim was not properly preserved in the
remanded proceeding, our case law has already rejected such claims
on the merits so we bypass the preservation question.
Under the 5-4 constitutional ruling in Booker, judge-made
enhancements under the guidelines that result in a sentence greater
than the sentence that could be imposed based solely on the facts
found by the jury do amount to Sixth Amendment violations if the
guidelines are treated as mandatory; but under the companion 5-4
remedial ruling in Booker, this problem is washed out by treating
the guidelines as advisory. A defendant sentenced under the
mandatory regime may be entitled to re-sentencing under the
advisory one--we return to this issue--but Booker both created and
cured the constitutional error at the same time. See United States
v. Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d 68, 75-76 (1st Cir. 2005).
-5-
Perez' fallback is that it was (in some metaphysical
sense) always a violation of the Sixth Amendment to permit such
judge-made findings at sentencing and that it violates ex post
facto and due process principles to apply Booker's remedial cure of
advisory guidelines for a crime that occurred prior to that
decision. As we explained in United States v. Lata, 415 F.3d 107,
2005 WL 1491483, at *2 (1st Cir. June 24, 2005), the ex post facto
clause does not apply because the changes wrought by Booker were by
judicial decision and not by statute. The due process argument
remains available to Perez, protecting against adverse changes in
the law after the crime was committed where the change denies the
defendant fair warning, but "only where the alteration is
'unexpected and indefensible' by reference to the case law that had
been expressed prior to the offense." Id. at *3 (citing Rogers v.
Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 461 (2001)).
There is no fair warning problem in this case. At the
time of Perez' crime--indeed, until the morning that Booker was
announced by the Supreme Court--Perez faced a foreseeable risk that
any crime he committed would result in a guideline sentence (within
the statutory maximum) based on judge-made fact-finding. That is
exactly what he got in this case. For Perez, the change wrought by
Booker might now permit a still lower sentence, but it did not
produce one higher than any pre-Booker reasonable expectation.
-6-
As to the possibility of a lower sentence, Perez has been
free for months to point to any circumstance that might suggest
that--if the district judge were offered the opportunity--the judge
might under advisory guidelines impose a sentence below 235 months.
No such suggestion has been made and for good reason. The judge
sentenced Perez at the very top of the available guideline range,
compare United States v. Vázquez-Rivera, 407 F.3d 476, 490 (1st
Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Aug. 5, 2005) (No. 05-
5686), and Perez points to no mitigating factors that mandatory
guidelines forbad or discouraged the district judge to consider.
If anything, an advisory-guideline sentence for Perez
could easily be longer--although only by five months. The district
judge earlier made clear his view that Perez was not only a
conspirator but also an enforcer who had committed a murder in aid
of the conspiracy. Absent a jury determination, this fact cannot
raise the statutory maximum, but it could easily have been
considered in deciding where to sentence under an advisory system
(and, seemingly, in fixing the guideline range itself although the
district judge did not base his sentencing range on this fact).
Next, Perez argues that the district judge erred in his
factual findings by attributing to him 15 kilograms of cocaine--
findings that we review for clear error. United States v. Santos,
357 F.3d 136, 140 (1st Cir. 2004). In a drug conspiracy, a
defendant is responsible "not only for the drugs he actually
-7-
handled but also for the full amount of drugs that he could
reasonably have anticipated would be within the ambit of the
conspiracy." Id.
The district court's findings as to the 15 kilograms are
adequately supported. At trial, a member of the conspiracy
testified that he had supplied the conspiracy with 2-4 kilograms of
cocaine on "several" occasions, amounting to "more than 15"
kilograms of cocaine; a federal agent stated summarily that the
conspiracy distributed "over 150 kilograms of cocaine"; and--
perhaps at least as important--there was evidence that the drug
conspiracy was a broad one covering a substantial number of drug
"points" (locations of sale) over a substantial period.
As for Perez' own role, he was not a minor figure, such
as a courier or lookout on the fringe of the operation. The
evidence at trial indicated that he had participated in the
conspiracy for five years and controlled his own drug point,
purchasing supplies at a higher level and employing others to
assist him. Tellingly, the district judge found enough evidence to
justify ranking Perez as a supervisor under the guidelines, and
summed up his sentencing determination as follows:
I think there is plenty on this record to
state this was an encompassing organization
that ran a ton of points, many, many points.
And those who were in the managerial levels of
the organization had reason, []or should have
known, you know, and in that sense, it ought
to be 15 kilos is a very, very conservative
estimate.
-8-
The specific evidence is not without weaknesses. The man
who delivered the "several" multi-kilogram shipments gave them not
to Perez but to a senior figure in the conspiracy, and these
deliveries occurred just about the time that Perez apparently
joined. The agent who estimated that the conspiracy handled over
ten times as much cocaine gave no foundation for his estimate. It
was concerns of this kind that led us in the earlier decision to
conclude that the evidence as to amount was not so powerful as to
overcome the preserved Apprendi error. Perez-Ruiz I, 353 F.3d at
18-19.
But it is one thing to disregard an error on the ground
that it has not been shown harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; it
is quite another to conclude that the district court committed
clear error in making findings about foreseeable amounts in a
conspiracy described at length as having multiple sales points, a
hierarchy of suppliers and an existence over a substantial period
of time. Whether "conservative" or not, the district court's
finding of 15 kilograms was adequately supported against any charge
that the finding was clear error.
Finally, Perez argues that the sentencing was
procedurally faulty. The pre-sentence report, issued before his
initial sentencing and unaltered for the re-sentencing, focused
exclusively upon a homicide with which Perez was associated but
which did not factor into the district court's eventual sentencing
-9-
determination now on appeal. The government's objections to the
pre-sentence report, filed for the re-sentencing, also offered an
alternative sentence calculation to the homicide cross-reference,
containing the drug quantity calculation and firearm and
supervisory enhancements on the basis of which the district court
eventually sentenced.
Because the alternative sentencing basis had been
presented in the pre-sentence process, the district judge's
decision to base Perez' sentence on this alternative calculation
was not improper under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, which effectively
mandates--although it does not state the matter in these general
terms--a measure of notice to the defendant of the bases on which
the court may impose a sentence. However, the government filed its
objections containing the new calculations on the day of the re-
sentencing hearing, thus arguably depriving Perez of adequate
notice of this new calculation.1
Nevertheless, at the sentencing hearing defense counsel
ably (although unsuccessfully) argued on the merits against the
court's contemplated findings as to drug quantity and use of a
firearm, an argument complete with case citations. More important,
counsel did not object that he had been given inadequate notice or
1
Because the original pre-sentence report was resubmitted
without revisions, it is debatable which, if any, of the prescribed
time limits found in Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 applied to the parties.
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f)(1), (g). At the very least, the spirit
of the rules required some notice and opportunity to object.
-10-
ask for a continuance on the ground that he needed more time to
prepare to contest the calculations based on newly minted bases.
Although the sentencing procedures laid out by Rule 32
are designed to narrow the issues and provide due notice, see Fed.
R. Crim. P. 32, it is well settled that counsel is expected to
object if he conceives that these procedures have been violated and
that, in the absence of a timely objection, only plain error review
is available. Soto-Beniquez, 356 F.3d at 53; United States v.
López-López, 295 F.3d 165, 169 (1st Cir. 2002). Nothing said on
this appeal explains why the sentencing might have come out
differently if more time had been afforded.
Perez' brief also complains that the district judge
failed to require the probation officer to revise the pre-sentence
report in light of the alternative sentencing calculations, and
that the court then failed to make formal rulings on any disputed
portion of the report or other controverted matters as required by
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B). The rule provides that the probation
officer "may" revise the pre-sentence report, Fed. R. Crim. P.
32(f)(3), and as to the findings it is plain from the sentencing
transcript that the district court specifically spelled out its
determinations and the bases on which it made them.2
2
The government misinterprets or mischaracterizes this
argument as addressed to the supposed failure of the district court
to append a copy of its determinations to the version of the pre-
sentence report that is submitted to the Bureau of Prisons. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(C). This is not the relief Perez seeks;
-11-
There is a separately filed pro se brief by Perez himself
which we have considered together with the briefs filed by counsel.
In this brief, Perez' first claim is the same Booker claim made by
his counsel and rejected above; his second claim is that Booker
error is a form of structural error, an argument flatly contravened
by our precedent, most recently in Vázquez-Rivera, 407 F.3d at 489,
and on which nothing more need be said.
Affirmed.
if the government views this failure to append as error it should
raise that objection with the district court.
-12-