United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 03-1230
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
JUAN E. VILLAFANE-JIMENEZ,
Defendant/Appellant.
No. 03-1231
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
EDDIE S. RODRIGUEZ-NICHOLS
Defendant/Appellant.
No. 03-1340 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Appellee
v.
MANUEL PENA-MARTINEZ,
Defendant/Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Carmen Consuela Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
____________________
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Howard, Circuit Judge,
Carter,* Senior District Judge.
Gabriel Hernandez-Rivera for appellant Juan E. Villafane-
Jimenez.
Wilberto Mercado for appellant Eddie S. Rodriguez-Nichols.
Lydia Lizarribar-Masini for appellant Manuel Pena-Martinez.
German A Rieckehoff, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, Nelson Perez-Sosa,
Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.
June 7, 2005
*
Of the District of Maine, sitting by designation.
Per Curiam.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Appellants (hereinafter “Defendants”) were convicted after
jury trial in the District of Puerto Rico of the offenses of
conspiracy to distribute cocaine, attempting to distribute cocaine,
both in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), and of
carrying firearms during and in relation to the commission of a
drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
Defendants Villafane-Jimenez (hereinafter “Villafane”) and
Rodriguez-Nichols (hereinafter “Rodriguez”) were each sentenced to
prison terms totaling 295 months. Defendant Pena-Martinez
(hereinafter “Pena”) was sentenced to a prison term of 352 months.1
All three Defendants were made subject to supervised release terms
of five years.
The Defendants appeal their respective convictions and
challenge various aspects of their respective sentence
determinations and the imposition of certain specific conditions of
supervised release. This Court has appellate jurisdiction over the
case under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). The Court
will consider the issues the Defendants generate on appeal, affirm
1
The total sentences of Villafane and Rodriguez are made up of
concurrent sentences on Counts I and II of 235 months plus a
statutorily mandated consecutive sentence thereto of 60 months on
Count III. Pena’s total sentence is made up of 292 month
concurrent sentences on Counts I and II plus the consecutive 60
month sentence on Count III.
-3-
their convictions and affirm their sentences in part, remanding for
resentencing of each Defendant only with respect to the drug
treatment condition of supervised release.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
There is no significant dispute as to the specific acts and
conduct of each of the Defendants that are the basis for their
indictments and convictions. The Defendants admitted to these at
trial. The only dispute goes to the intent with which the
Defendants engaged in that conduct. The conduct itself is
displayed in the record as follows.
Special Agent Jeffrey Pelaez was employed by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s (hereinafter “FBI”) Public Corruption
Unit in Washington, D.C. He was assigned to the FBI resident
agency in Fajardo, Puerto Rico, to investigate allegations of
police corruption within the Puerto Rico Police Department
(hereinafter “PRPD”). He was in charge of an operation known as
“Honor Perdido.”2 The operation lasted from June 2000 to June
2001. In the course of the operation, Pelaez recruited ex-police
officer Arturo Ortiz-Colon (hereinafter “Ortiz”) as an informant
and undercover operative. Ortiz had lost his position in the
Puerto Rican police because of prior criminal activity. He had
also witnessed criminal activity of officers within the PRPD.
2
This operation generated this Court’s consideration of issues
not involved in the present case in United States v. Flecha-
Maldonado, 373 F.3d 170 (1st Cir. 2004).
-4-
Pelaez launched Ortiz as his operative in a drug “sting” operation
aimed at corrupt police officers.
Arrangements were made for Ortiz to pose as an actual FBI
agent. He was given credentials, agency business cards, a marked
vehicle, and a gun, all to create the impression that he was an FBI
agent. The FBI rented two apartments at an expensive resort.
Ortiz lived in one of those apartments, which was wired for audio
and video surveillance, and the FBI used the other apartment to
monitor what was happening in Ortiz’s apartment.
The evidence would support a jury finding that Ortiz was to
pretend to be a corrupt FBI agent involved in a drug trafficking
organization in which “the boss” was a fictional Columbian male
named “El Viejo.” Ortiz was to appear to be looking, on behalf of
the fictional El Viejo, for law enforcement officers to transport
El Viejo’s drug shipments, and to protect the shipments from rival
drug gangs and intervening police officers. He was to approach
individuals who he personally knew, or had reason to believe, were
corrupt,3 and solicit them to carry out an illegal drug transport
and be paid to do it.
The Government’s evidence supports a finding that Ortiz did,
in fact, pose to the Defendants as a corrupt FBI officer engaged in
illicit drug trafficking. The jury could reasonably have found
3
Neither Villafane nor Rodriguez were known to Ortiz prior to
the time he recruited them after being introduced to them by Pena.
None of the Defendants had any record of criminal convictions.
-5-
that he approached Pena representing that he needed policemen
willing to assist him in a major illegal shipment of contraband
cocaine by unloading the drugs, transporting the drugs to their
destination, unloading them from the vehicles, and providing
throughout security to the operation as armed, uniformed police
officers.4 Agent Pelaez described at trial a meeting between Ortiz
and the Defendants on May 9, 2001, which he monitored by television
surveillance. Ortiz there discussed with the Defendants the
“specifics” of how the transportation of cocaine would occur. He
told the Defendants that the cocaine was owned by “El Viejo,” who
would be the person paying them for their services. Agent Pelaez’s
testimony also described the Defendants’ videotaped activities in
unloading the drugs from a boat at a marina and putting them in a
Jeep Cherokee on May 11, 2001. All of the Defendants handled and
transported the drugs and Rodriguez patrolled the area with “a
fully automatic machine gun” to protect against any interference
with the conduct of the operation.
Pena and Rodriguez left the marina area where the drugs were
obtained in Ortiz’s vehicle with the drugs and a rifle and their
sidearms. Villafane, also armed, followed them in a marked police
4
The prosecution witnesses testified at trial that they did not
specifically require the Defendants to carry firearms, but that it
was assumed that the Defendants would do so. This assumption was
apparently understood by the Defendants as they appeared on the day
of the transport/escort uniformed and armed. They contended at
trial that this occurred only because they were fresh from other
police duties.
-6-
cruiser “to provide security.” They took the drugs to Ortiz’s
apartment. Their activities there were videotaped.5 At a
subsequent meeting on May 14, the Defendants were each paid $5000
in cash and they discussed the operation and how it could be better
done the next time. Thus, the thrust of the Government’s evidence
was that the three Defendants understood that they were being
recruited by a corrupt FBI agent to participate in an illicit,
major drug trafficking project for which they would receive at
least $4000 and that they willingly participated therein.
Defendants challenge the validity of the drug convictions on
Counts I and II and their convictions on Count III, claiming that
they thought all along that Ortiz was a legitimate FBI officer
seeking their assistance in legitimate law enforcement activities
aimed at curtailing an illegal drug transaction.
The Defendants also attack their convictions on Count III on
the separate basis that they carried their weapons because they
were required by law to do so when in uniform and that the presence
of the firearms at the scene of their drug trafficking activities
was merely coincidental to the drug trafficking activities and not
5
Various videotapes and audiotapes reflecting the interaction
of the Defendants with Ortiz at various stages of the operation
were played to the jury at trial.
-7-
“in relation to” the drug trafficking activities, as the statute,
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), requires.6
III. THE CHALLENGES TO THE CONVICTIONS
A. The Estoppel by Entrapment Defense
Defendants seek reversal of their convictions because, they
allege, their prosecution violates fairness elements of Due Process
of Law under the Federal Constitution. They claim this to be so
6
We note in advancing to a discussion of the substantive
aspects of Defendants’ challenges to their convictions, as
distinguished from the sentencing issues they generate, that these
challenges come to us on two separate procedural footings. We have
reviewed carefully these circumstances and conclude that the
substantive issues are paramount to our resolution of the appeal
and that the procedural nuances below have no impact on that
resolution.
We assume, for reasons of judicial economy, and despite
uncertainties that arise from the contours of his briefing on
appeal, that Defendant Pena intends that his arguments for reversal
of the conviction on Count I also relate to that on Count II.
The standard of review for determining whether the denial of
a Rule 29 Motion is erroneous is de novo. United States v. Rivera-
Ruiz, 244 F.3d 263, 266 (1st Cir. 2001); United States v.
Hernandez, 146 F.3d 30, 32 (1st Cir. 1998). The standard is the
same in conducting a review of the record on appeal to examine the
viability of a free-standing challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence. United States v. Caron, 64 F.3d 713, 715 (1st Cir.
1995).
We treat the position of all three Defendants in seeking
reversal of the convictions on all three Counts as raising the same
two substantive issues for resolution: (1) whether the evidence was
sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt each Defendant’s
specific intent to commit each of the three crimes by reason of an
estoppel by entrapment and (2) whether the evidence as to Count III
was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each
Defendant’s carrying of a firearm was “in relation to” the
commission of the drug trafficking offenses.
-8-
because they offered evidence, disputed by the Government’s
evidence at trial, that they reasonably relied on representations,
which they allege were made by Ortiz, that the conduct upon which
their convictions are based was part of a legitimate law
enforcement project Ortiz was carrying out in his capacity as an
FBI agent. This, they argue, implicitly represented to them that
their conduct was legal.7 Hence, they assert, the convictions
should be vacated because the Government is estopped from
prosecuting them by reason of their entrapment into the illegal
activity.
The short answer to this contention is that the Defendants
have the burden of proof to establish at trial their defense of
estoppel by entrapment and they failed to do so. They had a full
opportunity to adduce any evidence they wished in support of that
defense, their counsel argued the defense to the jury, and the
district court gave instructions to the jury concerning the defense
(as to which there were no objections), and the defense was
ultimately submitted to the jury on a disputed record. The result
at trial was that the jury found for the Government. We conclude
7
It is to be noted that the record does not disclose that the
Defendants have ever made any specific claim that Ortiz told them
in so many words, that is, made an “affirmative representation,”
that their conduct was, or would be “legal.” Such an affirmative
representation has been held to be required as an element of the
estoppel by entrapment defense, to be proven by the Defendant.
United States v. Ellis, 168 F.3d 558, 561 (1st Cir. 1999). That
argument is not made by the parties here.
-9-
after a careful review of the trial record that the evidence is
sufficient to support that result.
In briefing on this appeal, the Defendants simply reargue the
factual aspects of the defense in juxtaposition to the Government’s
evidence that they, in fact, committed each of the charged
offenses. On a general theory, Defendants assert that all of the
evidence is insufficient to prove that they possessed specific
criminal intent to commit the offense. There is no claim made here
that evidence material to the defense was limited or excluded at
trial. It is not contended that the issues generated by the
defense were not submitted to the jury or that those issues were
taken away from jury consideration on the evidentiary record.
Moreover, it is not contended that there was any defect in the jury
instructions given by the Court in respect to the defense. The
thrust of the arguments as they are made can only be viewed as the
assertion of a claim that the Defendants established at trial the
defense of estoppel by entrapment as a matter of law. Review of
such a claim is plenary because “the issue is whether or not there
was sufficient evidence to support a theory of defense ....”
Caron, 64 F.3d at 715.
In order to establish the subject defense at trial, the
Defendants were required to establish that (1) a governmental
official told them their conduct was legal; (2) they relied on that
representation; (3) their reliance was reasonable in the
-10-
circumstances; and (4) given that reliance, prosecution for the
conduct is unfair. Ellis, 168 F.3d at 561; United States v. Smith,
940 F.2d 710, 715 (1st Cir. 1991).
Our careful review of this record convinces us that there is
no basis to conclude that the Defendants’ proof warranted the
acceptance of the defense as a matter of law. Clearly, the
evidence made, at best, issues of fact for a fact-finder to resolve
as to the viability of the defense.
Whether a reasonable fact-finder should be persuaded of the
validity of the defense depends entirely, in the circumstances of
this record, upon the resolution of any number of disputed issues
of fact and the determination of the credibility, in whole or in
part, of nearly every witness who testified at trial. These are
typical jury functions for the resolution of disputed questions of
fact.
The lynchpin for the resolution of the issue of the
Defendants’ intent is the determination of fact as to what Ortiz
told them (and what they understood) about the legal status of the
operation: either that it was an exercise in legitimate law
enforcement (as the Defendants contend) or that it was to be
assistance to a corrupt FBI agent in illegally transporting,
escorting, and safeguarding a shipment of contraband drugs for a
garden-variety civilian drug trafficker (as the Government
contends). A choice among these two alternatives resolves the
-11-
issue of whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the
Defendants’ guilty intent.
All Defendants asserted in ambiguous language that they were
led to believe that the project was a covert or undercover police
operation. Ortiz and Pelaez testified that the Defendants were
told it was an illegal activity from the beginning. There is
abundant evidence in the record to support the Defendants’
convictions. It could be concluded that the Defendants were told
the operation was an illegal one and that the description and
circumstances of the project would have left them, as experienced
police officers, no room to reasonably believe that it was a
legitimate law enforcement effort. Further, the evidence supports
a finding that they knew, because told by Ortiz, that there would
be no arrest as a result of the seizure and transport of the
contraband, a strange circumstance for a legal police operation.
They were told that they were to be paid a sum of money (not less
than $4000) for their participation in the project that was far in
excess of the usual rate of compensation of line police officers
for an a couple of hours of official work. They were told the
ultimate amount of their compensation would depend upon the amount
of drugs transported by them. They were told that the money for
their compensation would come from the supposed owner of the drugs,
not from FBI funds. They were ultimately paid and accepted $5000
each for their efforts and the payments were made in cash at
-12-
Ortiz’s apartment. The circumstances of their compensation and the
determination of the amount of it were, alone, forceful, persuasive
proof from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the
Defendants knew they were not participating in a legitimate police
operation and were a confirmation of Defendants’ culpable knowledge
and intent from the very beginning of their involvement in the
operation. That confirmation is entirely consistent with all of
the other evidence indicating the guilt of the Defendants.
We conclude that the defense was properly submitted to the
jury on unchallenged instructions, that no error occurred in that
respect, that the record amply supports the jury’s verdict and that
the Rule 29 Motion was properly denied.
B. The Weapons Charge-Count III
We assume the Defendants press the estoppel by entrapment
argument to attack the existence of specific intent on Count III,
but we find that position is without merit in the record. First,
the argument that Rodriguez never drew his sidearm overlooks
entirely that evidence in the record (that was undisputed) that he
was asked to carry a police-owned automatic rifle during the
transport and escort activities to discourage intervention by
others, and that he did, in fact, do so. This evidence, by itself,
is enough to permit a jury to conclude that Rodriguez had the
general knowledge and intent to carry a firearm during and in
-13-
relation to his activity in the transport/escort as charged in
Count III.
The Government did not need to prove that Defendants
specifically intended to use or did use a firearm in the course of
the transport activity in order for a jury to convict them of the
Count III offense. The Government needed only to prove
individually their general intent, e.g., that they each knew that
they carried a firearm during the course of the drug offense
conduct, in order to lay a predicate in the evidence that was
adequate for their convictions on Count III. See United States v.
Brown, 915 F.2d 219, 225 (6th Cir. 1990). We find that the
evidence clearly supports the existence of that level of knowledge
by all three Defendants, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defendants also advanced below the argument on the Rule 29
Motion, and reiterate it here, that the evidence was insufficient
to satisfy the “nexus” requirement of the violation charged in
Count III. This element of the possession offense is treated at
length in United States v. Grace, 367 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2004).
There we said that the current version of the statute does not
require the Government to show that the Defendant “actively
employed” the firearm “in furtherance of” the drug crime. Id. at
35. We held, however, that it must be shown in order to secure a
conviction that the Defendant has “possessed the gun to further the
drug crime.” Id. (emphasis added). In Grace, the underlying
-14-
offenses were possession and distribution of drugs. The Court
there found that the possession of the gun was in furtherance of
the possession and distribution of the drugs. We said that the
“government must illustrate through specific facts, which tie the
defendant to the firearm, that the firearm was possessed to advance
or promote the criminal activity.” Id. (quoting United States v.
Lawrence, 308 F.3d 623, 630 (6th Cir. 2002)).
The evidence material to Count III of this Indictment can
properly be evaluated on the basis that the jury approached its
consideration of this Count having concluded that the Defendants
were guilty on Counts I and II. Once it is established that the
Defendants had the specific intent to engage in a conspiracy to
distribute drugs illegally and to participate actively in the
attempt to distribute them, the question becomes whether the
evidence established a “nexus” between that criminal conduct on
Counts I and II and possession by the Defendants of the firearms.8
As noted previously, in the case of Rodriguez, the existence
of such a nexus is transparently clear because he patrolled the
drug transfer site at Ortiz’s instructions with an automatic rifle
from the Defendants’ police cruiser. It was easily to be deduced
8
The evidence is overwhelming (indeed, it is undisputed) that
each Defendant personally carried at least one firearm during the
transport/escort activities. This evidence is clearly sufficient
to meet the requirement of specific facts which tie the Defendants
to the firearms. Grace, 367 F.3d at 35; United States v. Vazquez
Guadalupe, __ F.3d __, No. 02-2505, 2005 WL 1163678, at *1 (1st
Cir. May 18, 2005).
-15-
by the jury in the circumstances that the obvious intent of that
conduct was to discourage “intervenors” from interfering in the
transfer and escort of the drugs. That conduct was clearly “in
furtherance of” the transport and escort of the drugs.
The situation is little different in the cases of Villafane
and Pena even though they assert (and the record does not
contradict) that they never drew or used their sidearms in the
course of the transport/escort activity. As noted above, the
brandishing or use of firearms is not a necessary element of the
Count III offense. Grace, 367 F.3d at 35. The evidence supports
the conclusion that the sole and mutually understood purpose of
Defendants’ participation in the activity as law officers was to
prevent, by their presence, other drug dealers or other
legitimately motivated police officers from interfering in and
disrupting the transport of the drugs. It is obvious that the
presence of the guns, displayed in the open, by the Defendants as
active participants in the illegal activity, would have a tendency
to discourage interruption of the transport by other persons and
was intended by the Defendants to do so. Further, it could be
fairly inferred by the jury that potential intervenors would likely
also bear arms and that the presence of the Defendants’ firearms in
open view would disabuse any potential intervenor of any thought
that he would enjoy a superiority of force in intervening in the
-16-
situation. The possession of the firearms did, as intended by the
Defendants, “further” the illegal drug trafficking activities.
We are satisfied, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, that this record clearly justifies
a rational jury in concluding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that all
of the Defendants possessed their firearms at the time of the
transport/escort activity in order to further the successful
execution of the illegal drug trafficking activity in question.
The possession was “in relation to” that activity. Id. The
verdict on Count III is supported in the record as to all three
Defendants, and the Rule 29 Motion was properly denied.
IV. THE CHALLENGES TO THE ELEMENTS OF SENTENCE
Defendants raise on appeal three distinct issues of substance
in respect to their sentences: (1) that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
U.S. 466 (2000), Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) require a remand for
resentencing in light of the non-mandatory status of the United
States Sentencing Guidelines; (2) that the district court committed
errors in imposing on Defendant Villafane a condition of supervised
release requiring that he submit to searches by his supervising
officer while on his term of supervised release; and (3) that the
district court erred in the structure of the condition of
-17-
supervised release imposed on Defendants Pena and Villafane in
respect to the frequency of their submission to drug testing.9
A. The Blakely/Booker Challenges10
The record makes it clear that in determining all of these
sentences the district court followed the analytical regime in
place before rendition of the decision in Booker. It is to be
presumed and it is, in fact, clear from the record that the
District Judge considered herself required to determine and impose
sentences as established by the Sentencing Guidelines. It is
equally clear that in working out the necessary guideline
determinations, she made several findings of fact critical to the
9
Defendants Pena and Rodriguez also raise issues concerning the
district court’s application of Guidelines § 3C1.1 (obstruction of
justice), § 3B1.3 (abuse of position of public authority), and §
3E1.1 (acceptance of responsibility). We have carefully reviewed
these claims, which were forfeited below, United States v.
Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d 68, 76 n.7 (1st Cir. 2005), for the
existence of plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,
733 (1993).
We find that on the records made below at trial and in the
sentencing proceedings these claims of error are facially without
merit and that no semblance of error, plain or otherwise, exists in
the district court’s findings in support of its application of the
subject Guidelines. These claims do not warrant any detailed
discussion. It suffices to say that the record contains abundant
evidence to support the conclusions that Pena obstructed justice by
his testimony at trial, both Pena and Rodriguez abused a position
of public trust and authority by participating in a drug
trafficking transaction as uniformed police officers, and that
neither was entitled to receive a reduction in the offense level
because they had truly accepted responsibility for their acts.
10
This analysis tracks closely that set out in the case of
United States v. Bailey, 405 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2005).
-18-
determination of the extent of the final sentences which were not
within the scope of jury findings in determining the guilt of the
Defendants and which were not admitted by the Defendants. It is
also clear that she made those findings upon application of the
preponderance of the evidence standard.
There is now no room for doubt that sentences based upon a
predicate of mandated compliance with the requirements of the
Sentencing Guidelines do not now pass constitutional muster. The
sentences imposed on these Defendants do not comply with the
holding of Booker in that respect.
The Defendants did not, however, object to their sentences on
Sixth Amendment grounds in the district court.11 Because Defendants
11
None of the Defendants made any attack on the sentences in
the district court on Sixth Amendment or other constitutional
grounds. Such an assertion of error was first made under Blakely
by Defendant Rodriquez in his second amended brief filed on July
20, 2004, while this case was pending for argument on this appeal.
Defendant Villafane made his first assertion of a Blakely error in
his Supplemental Brief of Appellant filed on August 18, 2004. Pena
did not challenge the constitutionality of the Sentencing
Guidelines or assert the existence of error under Apprendi in
either the district court or in the first round of briefing on this
appeal.
Thereafter, on January 12, 2005, while this case was under
advisement, the Supreme Court decided Booker, confirming the
application of the holdings in Apprendi and Blakely to sentences
imposed under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This Court
then entered on March 8, 2005, its standard order in such cases
inviting the briefing of any claims made under Booker and its
antecedent authorities. All three Defendants thereafter filed
supplemental briefs asserting the existence of Booker error and the
government has responded to those assertions by its own
supplemental brief.
-19-
made no arguments in the district court concerning the
constitutionality of the Guidelines or the application of the
Guidelines to their sentences under Apprendi, we review only for
plain error.12 See Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d at 76.13
Under the four-part plain error test outlined in Olano, we
grant relief only if we find (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and
that not only (3) affected the defendant’s substantial rights, but
also (4) “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d at
77 (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 736). The Defendants bear the
burden of persuasion with respect to all four elements of the test.
See United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado, 402 F.3d 294, 302 (1st Cir.
2005) (citing Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d at 77).
The first two prongs are satisfied here because the district
court treated the Guidelines as mandatory at sentencing. See
Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d at 77. To meet the third prong of the
12
The Defendants could not have challenged in the district
court on the basis of Blakely because that decision had not been
issued at the time of imposition of the sentences.
13
We reject any suggestion that Defendants’ initial challenges
at sentencing were sufficient to preserve the issue of the
constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines for plenary review.
Although we treat “almost any colorable claim” as preserving Booker
error, see United States v. Heldeman, 402 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir.
2005), here it is clear that the objections at sentencing in the
court below were directed solely to the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the district court’s findings in determining the Total
Adjusted Offense Level.
-20-
test Defendants must show a “reasonable probability” that the
district court would impose a more favorable sentence to the
Defendants under the now “advisory” Guidelines. Id. at 75. “[W]e
are inclined not to be overly demanding as to proof of probability
where, either in the existing record or by plausible proffer, there
is reasonable indication that the district judge might well have
reached a different result under advisory guidelines.” Heldeman,
402 F.3d at 224; accord United States v. Vega Molina, No. 03-1625,
2005 WL 1177221, at *19 (1st Cir. May 19, 2005).
Each Defendant has failed to present us with any argument of
substance regarding the probability of a sentence reduction on
remand in his case. Rather, they invite us to disregard
Antonakopoulos and accept a per se remand rule in every case where
a Booker error occurs. They argue that we should presume that the
district court would have analyzed the case differently were it not
for the mandatory nature of the Guidelines. That position was
squarely rejected in Antonakopoulos.
We decline the Defendants’ invitation to ignore
Antonakopoulos. Absent unusual circumstances not present here,
panels of this court are bound by prior circuit decisions. See
United States v. Rodriguez, 311 F.3d 435, 438-39 (1st Cir. 2002).14
14
To the extent Defendants seek to distinguish their case from
Antonakopoulos, the effort is unpersuasive. The district court in
Antonakopoulos faced a set of sentencing issues nearly identical to
those presented here. See Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d at 82 (noting
that the district court had made no less than three factual
-21-
Because Defendants have entirely failed to “advance any viable
theory as to how the Booker error” prejudiced their substantial
rights,15 and because we find nothing in the record to “suggest a
findings resulting in sentence enhancements beyond that authorized
by the jury verdict and also denied a request for a downward
departure).
15
Pena’s only suggestion of a basis for remand is that “[i]n
the instant case, all enhancements could have been disputed in a
different light as they were not mandatory.” Supplemental Brief
for Appellant [Pena], at 15. This is far from a showing, to a
reasonable probability, that on remand the district court would, in
fact, impose a lesser sentence, especially in light of the fact
that Pena presented his arguments on the enhancements at the
original sentencing and they were considered by the district court.
Even though on remand the Guidelines would be “advisory,” no basis
is shown by Pena to believe it to be reasonably probable that a
sentence on remand would actually be more favorable to him.
Villafane likewise makes no showing of reasonable probability
of a more favorable sentence on remand, arguing instead that
“neither the defendant nor this court will be able to know whether
the District Court, knowing [that] the Guidelines now are not
mandatory would apply the sentencing factors set forth ... [in 18
U.S.C. §3553(a)] and determine the same or a lower more reasonable
and appropriate sentence.” Supplemental Brief for Appellant
[Villafane] on “Booker” Errors, at 5. However, absent any
demonstration of some reason to believe it probable that on remand
a lower sentence would actually result, this is nothing more than
an argument for the per se remand rule on occurrence of a Booker
error, expressly rejected in Antonakopoulos. A suggestion of the
possibility of a favorable sentence is not a showing of a
reasonable probability of a more favorable sentence on remand as is
now required. Bailey, 405 F.3d at 114.
Rodriquez argues, in the face of the contrary holdings in
Antonakopoulos and Bailey, that “a Sixth Amendment Booker error is
a structural error as one in which prejudice ought to be presumed.”
Supplemental Brief Pursuant to Invitation by the Court (Rodriguez),
at 6 (unnumbered). He suggests that on remand the district court
could consider more favorably the factors put forth at sentencing
in respect to Defendant’s absence of any criminal record, an
allegedly unblemished police service record, a good reputation in
the community, and his alleged acceptance of responsibility. Id.
-22-
basis for such an inference,” we deny the requests to remand for
Booker-error. Gonzalez-Marcado, 402 F.3d at 303.
B. Pena’s Claim of Sentencing Manipulation
Pena’s contention in respect to a claim of sentencing
manipulation must be addressed, however, as it is external to the
district court’s determination of his sentence.
Pena asserts that he is the victim of sentencing factor
manipulation because the Government devised and controlled the
performance of the sting operation that snared him.16 We have said
that sentencing factor manipulation occurs “when a ‘defendant,
although predisposed to commit a minor or lesser offense, is
at 8 (unnumbered). However, he made no showing that it is
reasonably probable that the district court would, in fact, reduce
the sentence on remand in light of these factors, all of which were
considered at the original sentencing.
It is far from necessarily true, ... that a judge who
found the facts underlying an enhanced sentence would
have reached a different result under a post-Booker
regime .... The use of judicial factfinding, then,
ordinarily cannot alone meet the ‘reasonable probability’
standard of the third Olano prong.
Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d at 79-80.
16
The Government suggests in brief that Pena has waived this
issue by not raising it in specific terms at the time of imposition
of sentence. We find no waiver. Defendant raised the issue in
objections to the Pre-Sentence Report, and the district court
noticed the issue in its Order of February 6, 2003, ruling on the
objections and overruling all of them. Order (Docket Entry No.
198). Pena, in allocution at the time of imposition of sentence,
argued to the Court that the Government had engaged in misconduct
in allegedly entrapping him into committing the offenses of
conviction.
-23-
entrapped in committing a greater offense subject to greater
punishment.’” United States v. Woods, 210 F.3d 70, 75 (1st Cir.
2000) (quoting United States v. Staufer, 38 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th
Cir. 1994)). We have very recently limned the nature of conduct
necessary to establish sentencing factor manipulation. We said:
Sentencing factor manipulation occurs where law
enforcement agents venture outside the scope of
legitimate investigation and engage in extraordinary
misconduct that improperly enlarges the scope or scale of
the crime. A manipulation claim can be established by
showing that the agents overpowered the free will of the
defendant and caused him to commit a more serious offense
than he was predisposed to commit.
United States v. Barbour, 393 F.3d 82, 86 (1st Cir. 2004) (internal
citations omitted). We have also acknowledged that a sentencing
court can depart from the Guidelines and statutory minimums based
on sentencing factor manipulation if the Defendant shows that the
Government has engaged in extraordinary misconduct in bringing
about the commission of the offense. United States v. Montoya, 62
F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Gibbens, 25 F.3d 28, 31
(1st Cir. 1994).
We review for clear error the district court’s denial of
Pena’s objection on this point. Gibbens, 25 F.3d at 30. There is
no merit to Pena’s claim. The evidence shows that the Government
afforded Pena an opportunity to commit the crimes of conviction,
and that he, being predisposed to do so, readily entered into the
criminal acts proposed by the Government: conspiracy, attempt to
distribute cocaine, and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug
-24-
trafficking offense. The Government did not expose Pena to any
lesser offense involving a lesser punishment than that applicable
to the offenses of his conviction and then later attempt to entice
him into more seriously punishable conduct. The Government’s sole
effort is shown by the evidence to have been to provide an
opportunity to Pena to commit the very offenses of which he stands
convicted. Accord Vazquez Guadalupe, 2005 WL 1163678, at *7.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Government attempted to
escalate the seriousness of the conduct involved in the offense as
originally proposed. The Government offered an occasion for a
single transaction: a drug transport/escort while armed. Pena
committed the crime he was predisposed to commit. The criminal
conduct was not exacerbated beyond the elements of the baseline
offenses in the course of the execution of the offenses by Ortiz
nor was the conduct otherwise prolonged.17 There was no pressure
put on Pena, despite his assertions to the contrary at sentencing,
17
The evidence does not support any argument that the Count III
firearm offense came about because of any sentence manipulation by
the Government. The opportunity provided by the Government was for
Pena to participate as a police officer in the conduct. As noted
in text, he was not required to carry his sidearm though it was
assumed by Pelaez and Ortiz that he would do so. He understood and
willingly shared in and indulged the assumption. He was asked to
patrol the scene of the transport/escort with a rifle and again
willingly did so without any need to persuade him to do so. This
was all carried out within the usual role of a police officer
acting in his official capacity. As such, the conduct was within
the context of the three offenses he was given the opportunity to
commit. There was no effort to worsen the sentencing consequences
of the three offenses. He committed only the crimes he was
predisposed to commit.
-25-
to engage in the conduct of which he stands convicted. Further,
there is absolutely no evidence in the record of illegitimate
motive on the part of Ortiz as an undercover agent or of misconduct
in his relations as a Government agent with Pena. The district
court’s denial of the objection was properly grounded in the
record.
C. The Conditions of Supervised Release
Two other points involve the question of whether the Court
erred in imposing on each of these Defendants two special terms of
supervised release.
(1) The Search Condition
In supplemental briefing on appeal, Villafane has challenged
(for the first time) the district court’s imposition of a search
condition as part of his supervised release requirements. We need
not address whether the condition satisfies the requirements of
United States v. Giannetta, 909 F.2d 571 (1st Cir. 1990). The
issue is forfeit, and does not amount to a miscarriage of justice
meriting our discretionary review. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 736.
(2) The Drug Treatment Condition
Pena asserts on appeal for the first time that the district
court erred when it delegated to the Supervisory Probation Officer
by the terms of a condition of supervised release the decision to
order him to attend a drug treatment program if he failed a drug
-26-
test. Villafane belatedly joined in the assertion of this claim in
his “Supplemental Brief” of August 18, 2004.
Our review of both claims would be for “plain error.” Here,
however, the Government concedes that the imposition of the
condition constitutes error under United States v. Melendez-
Santana, 353 F.3d 93, 101-02 (1st Cir. 2003), and agrees that “the
challenged drug treatment condition should be vacated and remanded
for re-sentencing.” Government’s Br. at 48. We accept, in the
absence of any objection, the Government’s concession.18 The
district court will reconsider the structure of this condition if
it is imposed in any new sentence of any Defendant. See United
States v. Ayala-Pizarro, No. 04-1038, 2005 WL 1119755, at *4 (1st
Cir. May 12, 2005) (“A remand to correct a delegation error as to
conditions of supervised release does not open up any other aspect
of a sentence for resentencing.”).
V. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the conviction of each of the
Defendants herein is AFFIRMED, and the sentence of each Defendant
18
We note that the same drug treatment condition was also
imposed on Defendant Rodriguez. Because the government concedes
the district court’s error, and in accordance with the principles
of Vazquez Guadalupe, we remand the sentences of all three
defendants to the district court to address this issue. Vazquez
Guadalupe, 2005 WL 1163678, at *3 (“In light of the government’s
concession in the companion case, we will also remand the
supervised release portion of Pacheco-Diaz’s sentence for the
limited purpose of determining whether he was similarly sentenced
in error and, if so, for correction of that error.”).
-27-
is AFFIRMED, except for that portion of each Defendant’s sentence
pertaining to the drug treatment condition as a term of supervised
release. The sentence of each of these Defendants is VACATED and
REMANDED for resentencing consistent with this opinion only as to
imposition and structure of the drug treatment condition.
-28-