Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/236/41/511000/
Timestamp: 2019-08-18 13:33:07
Document Index: 13472514

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 846', '§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841']

United States, Appellee, v. Daniel Lafreniere, A/k/a Diablo Dan, Defendant, Appellant, 236 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2001) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › First Circuit › 2001 › United States, Appellee, v. Daniel Lafreniere, A/k/a Diablo Dan, Defendant, Appellant
United States, Appellee, v. Daniel Lafreniere, A/k/a Diablo Dan, Defendant, Appellant, 236 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2001)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - 236 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2001)
[Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Michael J. Cruz, by appointment of the Court, with whom Bernard & Cruz, was on brief for appellant Daniel LaFreniere.
Lafreniere urges us to consider Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) as an example of the "subtle nature of improper inducement," which he claims he was subjected to. According to him, "[d]espite the layman's belief that entrapment requires aggressive and coercive behavior on the part of a government agent, the facts in Sorrells provide effective illustration of an inducement which went beyond merely providing the defendant with an opportunity to commit a crime." Id.
Sorrells involved a conviction under the National Prohibition Act. The defendant, a World War I veteran, was visited by a prohibition agent posing as a tourist, who, as it turned out, was also a war veteran. Playing upon their common experiences, the agent twice asked the defendant for some liquor without result. Upon the agent's third request, the defendant gave in. At trial, the defendant alleged entrapment, but the court refused to sustain the defense ruling that, as a matter of law, there had been no entrapment. The circuit court affirmed; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Contrary to Lafreniere's contention, the Court in Sorrells did not rule that the defendant had been entrapped as a matter of law, but "that upon [the] evidence produced . . . the defense of entrapment was available and that the trial court was in error in holding that as a matter of law there was no entrapment and in refusing to submit the issue to the jury." Id. at 452 (emphasis added). The Court found that the agent had "lured" the defendant "by repeated and persistent solicitation in which he succeeded by taking advantage of their experiences as companions in arms in the World War." Id. at 441. No such insistence occurred in this case.
Lafreniere asserts, nonetheless, that Alvis "purposefully took advantage of the emotional bond" between them to induce him. At trial, Alvis acknowledged having used Lafreniere's "trust," "loyalty" and "affection" to get him involved in the drug deal. Yet such cunning, without more, is not impermissible. See United States v. Young, 78 F.3d 758, 761 (1st Cir. 1996) (rejecting "the proposition that friendship, without a plea predicated upon friendship, suffices legally as inducement."); Sorrells, 287 U.S. at 441 ("Artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises."). While Alvis may have led Lafreniere to believe that the plan would benefit the Club, he did not twist his arm to make him take part in it. The evidence reasonably supports a finding that rather than an "unwary innocent," Lafreniere was an "unwary criminal." Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 372 (1958).
It is not disputed that Alvis initially suggested the drug deal as a way to generate money for the Club. Also, Lafreniere did not have a criminal record, particularly as to drug trafficking. The relevance of these circumstances, however, is markedly outweighed by more substantial factors. First and foremost, Lafreniere showed no reluctance to engage in the heroin transaction; he readily agreed to the plan. This factor, in itself, can "adequately evince an individual's predisposition." Gifford, 17 F.3d at 469. Moreover, in expressing his acquiescence, Lafreniere remarked that he had "already d[one] one of these things," in reference to the previous reverse sting heroin transaction in which he had been involved.3 Second, as already noted, the government's inducement was not improper; Alvis did not coerce, threaten or doggedly pressure Lafreniere to participate in the transaction. Third, Lafreniere was a regular drug user. He argues nonetheless that the evidence showed that he was "essentially a hard-working family man." However, as we have noted before, "it cannot be enough where the defendant readily agreed to engage in a criminal act, to show that he enjoys good reputation." United States v. Panet-Collazo, 960 F.2d 256, 259 (1st Cir. 1992) (citation, internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). In sum, we find that, based on the evidence, a reasonable jury could have found that Lafreniere was not entrapped.
Lafreniere next alleges that the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to the defense of entrapment. Because Lafreniere did not object to the charge at trial, we review this claim for plain error. United States v. Alzate, 70 F.3d 199, 201 (1st Cir. 1995). "This type of review entails inquiry into whether affirmance would skew the fundamental fairness or basic integrity of the proceeding below in some major respect, so as to result in a miscarriage of justice." United States v. Alicea, 205 F.3d 480, 484 (1st Cir. 2000) (citation, internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Finding no such circumstances, we affirm the district court's instructional decision.
In instructing the jury on inducement, the trial court referred to the element of predisposition as follows: "[A] defendant may not be convicted of a crime if it was the Government that not only gave the defendant the idea to commit the crime, but also persuaded him to commit a crime that he was not ready and willing -that is, predisposed- to commit before Government officials or agents first spoke with him." "On the other hand," the court continued, "if the defendant was predisposed to violate the law under circumstances making it desirable in his view to do so, and the Government merely presented him with those circumstances, that would not constitute entrapment." Moreover, the trial court specifically instructed the jury on predisposition:
If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed -that is, ready and willing- to commit the offenses charged, and the Government merely offered a favorable opportunity to commit them, then you should find that the defendant was not entrapped.
The trial court's instruction neatly followed our jurisprudence on entrapment. Specifically, calling upon the jury's attention to a defendant's readiness to commit the crime comported with our statement in Gifford, to the effect that "ready commission of the criminal act can itself adequately evince an individual's predisposition." 17 F.3d at 469. Moreover, contrary to Lafreniere's contention, the trial court did not solely refer to a defendant's readiness to commit the offense; it also directed the jury to examine whether Lafreniere "was predisposed to violate the law under circumstances making it desirable in his view to do so," having been merely presented with the opportunity to do so, and prior to being approached by government agents. This part of the court's instruction echoes the test set forth in Gendron to assess predisposition; that is, asking "how the defendant likely would have reacted to an ordinary opportunity to commit the crime." 18 F.3d at 962. Furthermore, the district court instructed the jury that it may "consider as evidence [of predisposition] a defendant's initial willingness or unwillingness to consider the crime." The court's indication to the jury to "decide whether evidence of a defendant's hesitation at the criminal suggestions reflects the conscience of an innocent person or merely the caution of a criminal," was also in accordance with our case law. See, e.g., United States v. Tejeda, 974 F.2d 210, 219 (1st Cir. 1992) (evaluating whether the defendant's delay in committing the crime resulted from "an experienced person's wariness in dealing with a comparative stranger"); United States v. Pratt, 913 F.2d 982, 989 (1st Cir. 1990) (concluding that the defendant's failure to make telephone calls and appear at meetings in relation to a drug transaction was attributable to difficulties in raising the purchase money).
After oral argument was held, letters were transmitted to the court under Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) calling our attention to the recent Supreme Court decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, -- U.S. -- (2000), 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). While the letters were transmitted by two of Lafreniere's co-defendants, we extended an invitation to Lafreniere and the government to supplement their briefs addressing the possible relevance of Apprendi and, assuming that Apprendi applies, addressing the issue of prejudice. Such memoranda having been filed, the matter is now properly submitted for disposition.
The Supreme Court in Appprendi held as a matter of constitutional law that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." 120 S. Ct. at 2362-63. Invoking this rule, Lafreniere seeks to have his sentence vacated because the amount of the heroin attributed to him was never submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Lafreniere did not raise this issue below, we review for plain error. See United States v. Mojica-Baez, 229 F.3d 292, 307 (1st Cir. 2000).
Lafreniere makes two arguments on appeal: first, that the district court imposed a sentence above the lowest statutory maximum provided by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (B); and second, that the district court erroneously imposed a sentence in excess of the lowest statutory mandatory minimum.
Lafreniere was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intention to distribute and to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The amount of heroin attributed to him was not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it was determined by the district court under a preponderance of evidence standard at the sentencing hearing. Under this standard, the district court determined that the transaction involved from 1 to 3 kilograms of heroin. Based on its findings the court sentenced Lafreniere to a ten year mandatory minimum sentence under 841(b) (1) (A).
The statutory framework involved in this case begins with Section 846, which provides that the penalty for an attempt or conspiracy to commit a drug trafficking offense shall be the same as the penalty for the offense that was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. 21 U.S.C. § 846. The underlying offense is set out in section 841(a) (1), which makes it unlawful to "manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance." 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Section 841(b) (1) (A)-(D), in turn, establishes the penalties applicable to a violation of section 841(a) (1). Section 841(b) (1) (C), the statutory catchall authorizes a term of imprisonment for a schedule I or II narcotic, such as heroin, without reference to drug quantity, of "not more than 20 years." 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (C).
Lafreniere first argues that the district court imposed a sentence above the lowest statutory maximum provided in Section 841. In support of his argument he relies on the Ninth Circuit case of United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2000). In that case, the jury made no finding as to the specific amount of marijuana that the defendant possessed with the intent to distribute. Similarly, the judge determined the quantity of drugs using the preponderance of evidence standard. The error occurred when the district court's finding imposed a sentence that went beyond the five year maximum for an undetermined amount of marijuana. Nordby was sentenced to the ten years under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (A) (vii). However, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (D) states that "in the case of less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, except in the case of 50 or more marijuana plants regardless of weight . . . [the defendant shall] be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 5 years." Id. at 1056-57. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit found the ten year sentence exceeded the maximum allowed for a marijuana conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b) (1) (D).
Although he does not spell out his argument, it appears that Lafreniere believes his case is exactly like Nordby, because his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum provided in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (A). However, his reliance is misplaced. First, unlike Nordby, Lafreniere was convicted of a heroin offense and not a marijuana offense. Therefore, the five year statutory maximum provision of Section 841(b) (1) (D), that was exceeded in Nordby, is inapplicable to the case at bar. As such, the correct "statutory maximum" for a schedule two substance, like heroin, is found in the catchall provision of Section 841(b) (1) (C). This section states that "in the case of a controlled substance in schedule I or II . . . except as provided in subparagraphs (A),(B), and (D), such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years." 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (C). Therefore, since the district court sentenced Lafreniere to a term of 10 years, well below the maximum of twenty years, his reliance on Nordby is incorrect.
The main obstacle to this proposition is Apprendi itself. The majority in Apprendi declined to overrule their previous decision in McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1965), which authorizes legislatures to increase minimum penalties based upon non-jury factual determinations, as long as the penalty imposed does not exceed the maximum range. See Apprendi, 120 S. Ct. at -- n.13. As the Eighth Circuit noted in Aguayo-Delgado:
Lafreniere objects to the consideration of the evidence of this prior involvement arguing that under Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 549 (1992), a defendant's predisposition must be determined prior to any contact with government agents. However:
[T]his is not a correct statement of the law. It is true that, when a defendant raises a defense of entrapment, the government must show that he was predisposed to commit the charged crime prior to his contact with government agents; however, the government may use the defendant's behavior after he was approached by government agents as evidence of his predisposition prior to meeting the agents.