1

08-2761-cr United States v. Sierra

1 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS 2 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 3 August Term 2009 4 Docke t No. 08-2761-c r 5 Submit ted: October 19, 2009 Dec ided: Marc h 29, 2010

6

_____________________________________________________________________________ 7 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, 8 Appellee , 9 10 - v.- 1 1 RA M IR O M E N E N D E Z , A LB E R T O S IE R RA , V ILM AB ID O , A N G E LO LIS I, R

U S S E LL 12 LAWRENCE, C ARL OS EKMEI RO, also known as “ Pelon,” PAUL PACHECO, RI CARDO 1 3 S OB ALVA R R O, M AR T HA C OB I S , KE NY IM AR I E LA D IAZ- P E R E Z, 14 De fe nd an ts , 15 GU STA VO SI ERR A, a lso kn own a s “ Pa

po ,” a lso kn own a s “ Ray ,” a lso kn own a s “ Ra ul, ” a lso 16 known as “ Mr. X,” 17 Defendant- Appellant

. 18

_____________________________________________________________________________ 19 B e fo re : JACO B S, Ch ie f Jud g e , M I NE R and L I VI NG STO N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. 20 Appea l from a judg ment enter ed on June 3, 2008, in the United States District Court for 21 the Southe rn

Di str ic t of

Ne w Y or k ( B atts , J.) , f

oll ow inga

guil ty ple a , c onvic tin gde fe nd ant22 appellant of

one count of

conspirac y

to distribute and possess with intent to dis tribute one 23 kilogr am or more of a substanc e conta ining a detec table amount of he roin, in violation of 21 24 U. S.C. §§ 84 1( a )( 1) , ( b) (1 ), 84 6, and on e c ount o f c on sp ir a c y

to l a un de r n arc oti c s p ro c e e ds , in 25 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) (B )(i), ( h), the c ourt havingsentenc ed def endant to conc urre nt 26 terms of imprisonment of 135 months upon a dete rmination that the base of fense level under

the 27 United States SentencingGuidelines for defe ndant’s convic tion for conspira cy to launder mone y 28 was to be c alculate d in acc ordanc e with the amount of na rcotics involved in his conviction for 29 conspirac y

to distribute narcotics. 30 Affir

med. 31 Randa D. Ma her, L aw Of

fice of Randa D . Maher ,2 1 Gre at Nec k, New Y ork, for defe ndant-a

ppellant. 2 Sarah Y . L ai and Guy Petrillo, Assist ant United 3 States Attorney s, L ev L . Dassin, ActingUnited 4 States Attorney for the Souther

n District of Ne w 5 York, United States Attorne y ’s Off ice f or the 6 Southern District of Ne w York, N ew Yor k, New 7 York, for appellee

. 8 MI

NER, Circuit J udg e: 9 Def

endant- appellant Gustavo Sierra ( “Sierra ”) a ppeals fr om a judg ment of convic tion and 10 sentenc e ente red on June 3, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of 11 Ne w Y or

k ( B atts , J.) , f

oll ow inga

guil ty ple a to o ne c ount o f c on sp ir a c y to d ist ri bute and

po sse ss 12 with intent to dis tribute one kilog ram or mor e of a substance c ontaining a

detec table amount of 13 heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)( 1), (b) (1), 846, a nd one count of

conspirac y

to launder 14 narc otics proce eds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) (B )(i), ( h). The D istrict Court 15 sentenc ed Sierra

to concur rent ter ms of imprisonment of 135 months upon a determination that 16 the base offe nse leve l under the United States SentencingGuidelines (the “ Guidelines”) for 17 Sie rr a ’s c onvic tio n f or c on sp ir a c y

to l a un de r m on e y , s e e 18 U. S.C. § 1 95 6( a )( 1) (B )( i) , ( h) , w a s to 18 be ca lculated in ac corda nce w ith the amount of narc otics involved in his conviction for 19 conspirac y

to distribute narcotics, se e 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1), ( b)(1) , 846. For the re asons that 20 fo llo w, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he Di str ic t Co ur

t. 21 I

. BA CKGROUND 22 Fr om 2003 to 2004, Si err a and his princ ipal co-c onspirator, Albe rto Sierra (“A lberto”) , 23 eng ag ed in a c onspiracy to distribute drug s and launde r money . Acc ordingto the scheme , a 24 supplier base d in Venezuela pr ovided Alber to with heroin to sell in the New Yor k City are a, and 25 Sierra — on be half of A lberto — collec ted the proc eeds of the drugsales as w ell as sold some of 26 the her oin. Sierra then tr ansfe rre d the drugproce eds to either A lberto or to “othe r people ,” who 27 acte d as intermedia ries on beha lf of drugsuppliers locate d in Venezuela, to disguise the nature , 28 location, source , owner ship, and control of the drugproce eds. 29 FollowingSierra’ s, Alberto’s, a nd other re lated def

endants’ a

rre sts in 2004, S ierra

wasThe pa rties do not dispute the amount of drug s involved in Counts One a nd Two. 1 B e c a us e Counts On e and

Tw o w e re g ro up e d p ur su ant t o U .S. S.G . § 3D 1. 2( c ), se e a lso 2 U. S.S. G. § 2 S1. 1 c mt. n. 6, the ba se of fe ns e le ve l f

or Count T wo and

any su bs e qu e nt a dju stm e nts applicable to that count incorporated the re commended Guidelines punishment for Count One, i.e., the two counts we re c ombined “into a sing le Group.” See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2. 3 1 ind ic te d o n tw o c ounts : on e c ount o f c on sp ir a c y to d istri bute and

po sse ss w ithint e nt t o d istri bute 2 one kilog ram or mor e of a substance c ontaining a

detec table amount of he roin, in violation of 21 3 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) , (b)( 1), 846 (“ Count One”), a nd one count of

conspirac y

to launder na

rcotics 4 proce eds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) (B )(i), ( h) (“ Count Two”). Althoug h the amount 5 of nar cotics in Count One involved appr ox imately 21 kilogr ams of her oin, the value of the 6 launder ed funds in Count Two amounted to the pr ocee ds from the sale of betwe en 2 and 3.5 7 kil ogra

ms o f h e ro in. On

July 12 , 2 00 6, Sie rr a , w ith out a ple a a g re e me nt, ple a de d guil ty to b oth 1 8 c ounts of

the Ind ic tme nt. 9 In prepa

ration for sentenc ing, the United States Probation Depa rtment submitted a 10 Pr e se nte nc e Inv e sti g atio n Re po rt (“ PSR” ) c a lc ulatin gSie rr a ’s a pp lic a ble Gu ide lin e s o ff

e ns e 11 level. The PSRg rouped Counts One a nd Two pursua

nt to U.S.S .G. § 3D1.2(c ), and c alculate d 12 Sie rr a ’s ba se of

fe ns e le ve l f

or Count T wo by

a pp lyingthe tot a l amou

nt o f d ru g s invo lve d in 13 Count One. This gr ouped ca lculation resulted in a ba se off ense le vel of 36. Af

ter a dding two 2 14 levels for

Sierra’ s conviction under 18 U .S.C. § 1956, adding thre e leve ls for Sierra ’s supervisory 15 or mana g eria l role in the cr iminal scheme, a nd subtractingthree levels for Sierra’ s acc eptanc e of 16 responsibility

for his cr imes, the PSRassig ned Sierra a total Guidelines off

ense le vel of 38. 17 Sie rr a

ob je c te d to the PSR’ s a

pp lic atio n o f t

he tot a l amou

nt o f d ru g s invo lve d in

Count O ne to 18 calc ulate the ba se off ense le vel for Count Two. 19 Although the g overnme nt ag ree d for the most par t with the PS R’s calc ulations, it not ified 20 the Di str ic t Co ur t th at, c ontr ary

to t he fi nd ing s in

the PSR, Sie rr a

did no t w arr ant a

ro le 21 enhanc ement as a manag er or

supervisor in the c riminal scheme. T he g overnme nt also advised 22 the District Court that Sierra qua lified for sa fety valve r elief unde r 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).Un de r S ie rr a ’s c a lc ulatio n o f h is t ota l of fe ns e le ve l, l imi tin gthe amou nt o f d ru g s to 2 to 3 3.5 kilogr ams for c alculatingCount Two would have r esulted in a total off ense le vel of 31. 4 1 Acc ording ly , the g overnme nt submit ted an a djusted Guidelines offe nse leve l of 33, and re quested 2 that Sie rr a

be se nte nc e d w ith in t

he c or re sp on din gGu ide lin e s r ang e of 13 5 to 16 8 mo nth s’ 3 imprisonment. Si err a ag ain objecte d that Count Two could not be ca lculated by applying the 4 amount of drug s involved in Count One. 5 At Sierra’ s sentencinghear ing, the District Court ag ree d with the g overnme nt that 6 Sierra’ s Guidelines offe nse leve l was 33. The D istrict Court rejec ted Sierra ’s contention that the 7 amount of drug s involved in Count One, i.e., the conspira cy to distribute approxi mately 21 8 kilogr ams of her oin, could not be consider ed in ca lculatingthe base offe nse leve l for Count Two, 9 i.e., the conspira cy to launder pr ocee ds from the sale of 2 to 3.5 kilogr ams of her oin. Upon 3 10 revie wingthe fa ctors set for th in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) in addition to the Guidelines, the District 11 Court

se nte nc e d Si e rr a

to c on c ur re nt t e rm s o f i mpr iso nme nt o f 1 35 months ; to c on c ur re nt t e rm s 12 of super

vised rele ase of

5 and 3 year s (Count One and Count Two, re spectively ); and imposed a 13 mandatory

assessment of $200. This timely appea l followed. 1 4 On ap p ea l , S i erraar gu es th atth e D i s tri ctC o urterre d i nco n s i d er i n g th e a m o un to f d ru gs 15 involved in Count One to calculate the base offe nse leve l for Count Two. This prese nts an issue 16 of first impression in this Ci rcuit. Sierra also argues, for

the first time, that the District Court 17 cre ated a

n unwar rante d disparity

in sentencingby

imposing upon him a long er te rm of 18 imprisonment than on eac h of his sever al co- defe ndants. Specifica lly , Sierra a sserts that co19 de fe nd ants wh o p lay e d th e same or a larg e r r ole in t

he c ri min a l sc he me we re g ive n le sse r t e rm s 20 of imprisonment than he. 2 1 II. A

N A LY S IS 22 A. Standard of Re view 23 We reviewsentenc es for abuse of discretion. United States v. Car r, 557 F .3d 93, 103 (2d 24 Cir. 2009). “The abuse- of-discr etion standard inc orporates de novo re view of que stions of law5 1 (includinginterpre tation of the Guidelines) and cle ar- err or re view of que stions of fact.” United 2 State s v . L e g ro s, 52 9 F .3 d 4 70 , 4 74 (2 d Ci r. 20 08 ). To the e xtent a de fe nd ant a

pp e a ls h is 3 sentenc e on g rounds that wer e not ra ised befor e the district cour t, our revie w is for plain e rror . 4 United States v. Game z, 577 F.3d 394, 397 (2d Cir. 2009) (pe r cur iam). “Plain er ror is (1) err or 5 (2 ) t

hat is pla in, (3 ) t

hat a ff e c ts s ub sta

nti a l r ig hts , a

nd (4 ) t hat se ri ou sly

a ff e c ts t he fa ir ne ss, 6 integ rity , or public re putation of judicial proce eding s.” United States v. Rig g i, 541 F.3d 94, 102 7 (2d Cir. 2008). 8 B. Ba se Off ense L evel f

or Count Two 9 Al tho ug h th e Gu ide lin e s are no lon g e r m and ator y , d istri c t c ourt s r e ma in o bli g e d to 10 consider the Guidelines in deter mining a c riminal defe ndant’s sente nce. See United States v. 11 Parnell, 524 F .3d 166, 170 (2d Cir. 2008) (pe r cur iam). A district cour t’s miscalculation of the 12 Guidelines constitutes proce dural e rror that “may

be a c ause f

or re mandingto the district court 13 for e x planation or c orre ction.” United States v. Johnson, 567 F.3d 40, 52 (2d Cir. 2009). 14 At issue in this case is the interpr etation of U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1, which direc ts gr ouping of 15 the offe nses at issue her e, see U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 cmt. n.6; provides for mulae for deter mining the 16 ba se of

fe ns e le ve l f

or mon e y la un de ri ngof

fe ns e s, se e U. S.S. G. § 2 S1. 1( a ); and se ts f or th 17 additional enhanc ements for specific offe nse cha

rac teristics, see U .S.S.G. § 2S 1.1(b). Sec tion 18 2S1 .1 pr ov ide s, in p art : 19 § 2S1.1. Lau ndering of Monetar y Instrum ents; Engaging i n Monetary 20 Transactions in P roperty Der ived f romUnlaw fu l Activity 21 (a ) B a se Of fe ns e L e ve l: 22 (1) The offe nse leve l for the unde rlying of fense from which the launder ed 23 fu nd s w e re de ri ve d, if

(A ) t he de fe nd ant c omm itt e d th e un de rl yingof fe ns e 24 (or would be acc ountable for the under lying of

fense under subse ction 25 (a) (1)( A) of § 1B 1.3 (Releva nt Conduct)); and (B ) the off ense le vel for 26 that offe nse ca n be dete rmined; or 27 (2) 8 plu s th e numbe r o f o ff e ns e le ve ls f

ro m th e ta

ble in § 2B 1. 1 ( Th e ft , 28 Property Destruc tion, and Fr aud) c orre sponding to the va lue of the 29 launder ed funds, other wise. 306 1 U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 (emphasis added; bold font in orig inal). 2 The “ underlying of fense ” re fer

red to in sec tion 2S1.1(a)(1) is “ the offe nse which 3 produce d the launder ed funds.” United States v. Cruzado-L aure ano, 440 F .3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 4 2006); ac cord United States v. Hodg e, 558 F .3d 630, 636 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. 5 Bla ckmon, 557 F.3d 113, 119–20 ( 3d Cir. 2009); United States v. Ander son, 526 F.3d 319, 324 6 (6th Cir. 2008); United States v. Charon, 442 F .3d 881, 887–88 (5th Cir. 2006). The total 7 Guidelines off

ense le vel for suc h “under lying of fense ,” af ter be ing inde pendently

calc ulated by 8 applying a ll appropriate adjustments, see, e .g ., Cruzado-L aure ano, 440 F .3d at 48, and 9 consideringany

rele vant conduc t under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, se e, e.g ., Charon, 442 F .3d at 888-89, 10 is the n u se d a s th e ba se of fe ns e le ve l f

or mon e y la un de ri ngpurs ua

nt t o U .S. S.G . § 2S1 .1 (a )( 1) if 11 tw o c on dit ion s are me t: ( 1) the de fe nd ant c omm itt e d th e “ un de rl yingof fe ns e ” or is o the rw ise 12 acc ountable for

the “unde rlying of

fense ” under

the re levant-c onduct Guidelines provision, see 13 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3; and (2) the base offe nse leve l for the “ underly ing of fense ” is deter

minable. 14 See U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(a)( 1). 15 I f either

of the for eg oing c onditions are not met, the base offe nse leve l for money 16 launder ing is de termined by addingeig ht levels to the corr espondingbase of fense level set by 17 “the va lue of the la undere d funds.” U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(a)( 2). In shorthand, the Sentenc ing 18 Manual a

nd the cour

ts have re fer

red to sec tion 2S1.1(a)(1)’ s sentencingformula a s punishing 19 “ dir e c t mo ne y

la un de re rs ” and

se c tio n 2 S1. 1( a )( 2) ’s a lte rn ativ e fo rm ula a s p un ish ing“ thi rd

pa rt y 20 money

launder ers.” See U.S.S.G. supp. to app. C, amend. 634, at 234 (Nov. 1, 2001); see also, 21 e.g ., Bla ckmon, 557 F.3d a t 119 (“Dire ct launder ers a re those who also commit the crime that 22 produce s the illicit funds, wherea s third-party launder ers have no involvement in the under lying 23 offe nse and only

launder the money

g ener ated f

rom that offe nse.”)

. 24 I t is undisput ed in this appea l that the “under lying of fense ” in this case is Count One, 25 which involved a c onspiracy to distribute approxi mately 21 kilogr ams of her oin and there fore 26 was a ssigne d a base offe nse leve l of 36 under U .S.S.G. § 2D1.1 DrugQuantity Table ( 2).Although not c ontested in this appeal, we ag ree with our sister circ uits that relevant 4 conduct may

be sepa rate ly considere d in calculating the of fense level for

the “unde rlying offe nse.” See , e.g ., Charon, 442 F .3d at 888–89 (holdingthat rele vant conduc t may be considere d in calculating the unde rlying of fense level pursua

nt to the inherent implications of the g roupingrules); a ccor d Bla ckmon, 557 F.3d at 122–23 (“[N]ot hing in § 2S1.1, its sentencing c omm e nta

ry , o r a ny oth e r p e rt ine nt Guid e lin e , in dic ate s th at th e se nte nc ingjud g e sh ou ld a pp ly the g roupingrules under

§ 3D1.2[, which nece ssarily takes into ac count the re levant conduc t provisions of the Guidelines,] differ ently in the context of § 2S1.1(a)(1) .”). 7 1 Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2S 1.1(a) (1), then, be cause Sierra w as convic ted of Count One a nd the 2 offe nse leve l for Count One is deter minable, the off

ense le vel for Count One , i.e., 36, bec omes 3 the base offe nse leve l for Count Two. See, e .g ., Cruzado-L aure ano, 440 F .3d at 48. 4 Sierra a

rgues that, bec ause U .S.S.G. § 2S 1.1(a) (1) incor porate s the rele vant conduc t 5 guid e lin e U. S.S. G. § 1 B 1. 3, “ jus t a s a de fe nd a nt’ s r e le va

nt c on du c t c an e le vate the of fe ns e le ve l, 6 c onve rs e ly , it

sh ou ld s e rv e to r e du c e the of fe ns e le ve l.” Ap pe lla

nt’ s B r. at 23 . Re lyingon thi s 7 logic , Sierra c laims that the releva nt miti g atingconduct he re is that he la undere d only

2 to 3.5 8 kil ogra

ms w or th o f d ru gpr oc e e ds rathe r t

ha n h avin gla

un de re d th e e nti re amou

nt o f 2 1 k ilo g ra

ms 9 worth of dr

ugproce eds involved in his conviction for c onspiracy to distribute drug s. We rejec t 10 Sie rr a ’s argume nt, a s it la c ks su pp or t in the te xt an d p ur

po se of the Gu ide lin e s. 11 F ir st, se c tio n 2 S1. 1( a )( 1) (A ) e xpre ssl y pe rm its the c on sid e ratio n o f r e le va nt c on du c t to 12 de te rm ine wh e the r t he de fe nd ant “ wo uld

be a c c ounta

ble fo r t he un de rl yingof

fe ns e .” Th is 13 statutory

dictate, a s evident fr om its t ext, permits consideration of re levant conduc t to determine 14 only

the def endant’ s acc ountability

for the unde rlying of

fense . Thus, “re levant conduc t,” as 15 expressly

ref err ed to in section 2S1.1(a) (1)( A), is not considere d in any way to affe ct the 16 un de rl yingof

fe ns e le ve l. 17 Se c on d, ins of ar a s r e le va

nt c on du c t ma

y be se pa rate ly c on sid e re d to c a lc ulate the of fe ns e 18 le ve l f

or the “ un de rl yingof

fe ns e ,” Sie rr a ’s argume nt t hat th e amou

nt o f f un ds he a c tua lly 4 19 launder ed should constitute “mitigating” rele vant conduc t is unsupported by the Guidelines. 20 Under

the re levant-c onduct Guidelines provision, a de fenda nt “is acc ountable for

all quantities of 21 contra

band with which he was dire ctly involved.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 c mt. n.2. That a def endantTo the extent Si err a invokes the r ule of lenity , see g ener ally United States v. Simpson, 5 31 9 F .3 d 8 1, 86 (2 d Ci r. 20 02 ) ( ho ldi ngthat th e ru le of le nit y , whic h p ro vid e s th at ambi guit y in 8 1 la un de re d a le sse r a mou nt o f f un ds tha n th e va lue of

his e nti re dr

ugop e ra tio n, the re fo re , is 2 immaterial. See g ener ally United States v. Bonne t-Grullon, 212 F.3d 692, 707 ( 2d Cir. 2000) 3 (“[T]he Guidelines requir e the c ourt to take into ac count uncha rg ed conduc t that is ‘[ r]elevant 4 [c]o nd

uc t . . .’ in o rd e r t o in c re a se the de fe nd ant’ s o ff e ns e le ve l.” (f

ir st a lte ra tio n a nd e mph a sis 5 added) ), super seded by statute on other grounds by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). 6 Th ir d, Sie rr a ’s int e rp re tatio n o f t he re le va nt- c on du c t G uid e lin e s und e rm ine s th e e xpre ss 7 purpose of

section 2S1.1(a) to punish direct money launder ers “ one to four le vels g reater than the 8 Chapter Tw o offe nse leve l for the unde rlying of fense ” U.S.S.G. supp. to app. C, amend 634, at 9 23 5 (No v. 1, 20 01 ); se e a lso id. at 23 4 ( e xpla ini ngthat se c tio n 2 S1. 1 is int e nd e d “ to p ro mot e 10 proportionality

by providingincre ased pe nalties for de fenda nts who launder f

unds derived f

rom 11 more ser ious underlying c riminal conduct, such a s drugtraff icking ”). Sierr a’s c ontention that the 12 value of

the launder ed funds must be c onsidered to r educe the offe nse leve l of the “unde rlying 13 offe nse” is inconsistent with section 2S1.1(a) (1)’ s sentencingcalc ulus, which was intende d for a 14 money

launder ing of

fense to add to the under lying of fense in direct money

launder ing c ases suc h 15 as Sierra ’s. See id. at 234–35. 16 Four

th, were we to ac cept Sierr a’s a rgument, we would e rrone ously conflate the dire ct 17 money

launder ing pr ovision under sec tion 2S1.1(a)(1) w ith the third-party money launder ing 18 provision under sec tion 2S1.1(a)(2). Sec tion 2S1.1(a)(2), which provides a method of 19 c a lc ulatin gthe ba se of fe ns e le ve l a

pp lic a ble to t hir d- pa rt y mon e y la un de re rs , e xpre ssl y

pe rm its 20 consideration of “the va lue of the la undere d funds” to dete rmine the prope r off ense le vel. 21 Section 2S1.1(a)( 1), by contra st, does not refe r to “the va lue of the la undere d funds” in any

way . 22 This omissi on indicates a n intent to ex clude the c onsideration of “ the value of the launder ed 23 fu

nd s” in d e te rm ini ngthe ba se of fe ns e le ve l un de r S e c tio n 2 S1. 1( a )( 1) . Se e Ha rd y v. N. Y. City 24 Hea lth & Hosps. Corp., 164 F .3d 789, 794 (2d Cir. 1999) (notingthe “f amiliar principle” of 25 statutory

interpre tation that “the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of the other” ). 5criminal statutes is to be re solved in favor of the de fenda

nt, applies to the Guidelines), that doctrine is inapplica

ble wher e, as he re, the challeng ed text is not ambiguous a fter our examination of the statute, see United States v. Hayes, 129 S.Ct. 1079, 1088 (2009); see a lso id. (indicatingthat an ambiguity must be “g rievous[] ” for the rule of

lenity to apply ). 9 1 We theref

ore hold that the D istrict Court did not err in calc ulating the base of fense level 2 for Sierr a’s c onviction in CountTwo, conspira cy to launder mone y , by

consideringthe amount of 3 narc otics involved in his conviction for Count One, conspira cy to distribute heroin. The District 4 Court properly

applied the ba se off

ense le vel for Count One to Count Two without accordingany 5 reduc tion in the offense level base d on the lesser amount of funds a ctually launder ed in the 6 criminal sche me. 7 C. Se nte nc ingDi sp ari ty 8 Sierra a lso argues that the District Court committed plain err or bec ause his sente nce 9 cre ated a

n unwar rante d disparity

betwee n him and eac h of his co-de fenda nts. Although it is true 10 that a district cour t may compar e co- defe ndants’ sente nces to avoid unwarr anted se ntencing 11 disparities, see United States v. Wi lls, 476 F.3d 103, 110 (2d Cir. 2007), a brog ated on other 12 g rounds by

United States v. Caver a, 550 F .3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008); see also United States v. 13 Wil liams, 524 F.3d 209, 216 (2d Cir. 2008), the sentenc ing dispa rities betwee n Sierra a

nd his co14 defe ndants wer e not unwar rante d in this case, see United States v. Ebber s, 458 F.3d 110, 129 (2d 15 Cir. 2006). Unlike Sierra , his co-def endants e ither (1) pleade d guilty pursuant to a plea 16 ag ree ment, (2) plea ded guilty to conspirac y

to distribute heroin or nar cotics but not to conspirac y 17 to l a

un de r m on e y , ( 3) ple a de d guil ty to c on sp ir a c y

to l a un de r m on e y

but no t to c on sp ir a c y

to 18 distribute, or (4) w ere exceptionally honest in admitting to the cr imes, and brought to the court’s 19 attention unique fa cts, such as H I V-positive status and a r esulting r educe d risk of re cidivism. On 20 pla in e rr or

re vie w, we the re fo re re

je c t Sie rr a ’s unwa

rr ante d- dis pa

ri ty argume nt a s w ith out me ri t.

21 I I I

. CONCLUSI ON 22 For

the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the District Court is AFF I RMED.