Opinion ID: 201905
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: How the Court Arrived at Olivero's Sentence

Text: 102 Olivero and 20 other defendants in this case were indicted on December 20, 2001. Before trial, there was a flurry of plea bargaining activity: in all, 15 of the 21 defendants pled guilty, seven on the very eve of trial. Green, 346 F.Supp.2d at 325. 103 On July 10, 2002, the probation office was asked to prepare a pre-plea presentence report for Olivero. Evidently this judge of the district court orders such pre-plea presentence reports as a matter of course. See id. at 279 (This court has burdened an already strained probation office by ordering pre-plea presentence reports in virtually every case as the best defense to illegal fact bargaining.). The pre-plea presentence report was prepared on October 29, 2002. It discussed the possibility of a minimal-role reduction for Olivero, but rejected it as not warranted on the evidence. It did not mention that Olivero had possessed a firearm. 104 On October 14, 2002, the U.S. Attorney sent to Olivero's attorney the plea agreement that they had negotiated, and Olivero and his attorney signed the document on October 30, 2002. In the proposed agreement, there was no mention of a weapon or a weapons enhancement, and the government agreed not to oppose a minimal participant downward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a). At the time, the government was also negotiating agreements with a number of co-defendants. 105 The proposed deal fell through on November 1, 2002, just before trial was to begin on November 4. Olivero withdrew from the deal when, at the hearing on acceptance of the plea, the court informed him that a plea would likely result in his immediate remand to custody. Green, 346 F.Supp.2d at 325. Olivero went to trial. Switching from its position during the plea agreement, the government presented evidence at trial tending to show that Olivero's role in the offense was more than minimal and connecting Olivero to a handgun whose ownership was in dispute. The jury returned its verdict, finding Olivero guilty, on December 12, 2002. 106 The post-conviction presentence report, dated April 10, 2003, states that a handgun was found in Olivero's bedroom, along with ammunition, 14.4 grams of cocaine, a scale, and a money-counting machine. Under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), this meant a two-level enhancement applied. 12 The Probation Office took the position that an adjustment for minimal role in the offense was not warranted. 107 The court first found Olivero responsible for at least 499 grams of cocaine, which led to a base offense level of 24. The court explained that because the jury left Olivero's drug quantity space blank on its verdict form, the jury must have found that the prosecution failed to prove as to him a quantity of 500 grams or more beyond a reasonable doubt. The court further stated that under Apprendi, a judge could not find a higher drug quantity on his own, by a mere preponderance of evidence. 108 Second, the court found that Olivero in fact possessed a gun in furtherance of the crime, but it declined to impose a sentence enhancement, citing what it viewed as the government's improper fact-bargaining, that is, an improper inconsistency between the government's willingness to ignore the gun enhancement as part of a plea agreement and its request for the gun enhancement after trial. The district court emphasized that the pre-plea presentence report did not mention a firearm. The court stated that the prosecution knew that a weapon had been found in Olivero's room before the preplea was entered into, and rejected the prosecution's argument that the facts necessary to prove gun possession became clearer as the prosecution prepared for and ultimately conducted the trial. 13 As a result, the court punished the prosecution by refusing to enhance the sentence, even though the April 10, 2003 post-conviction presentence report had recommended the two-level U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) firearm enhancement. 109 Third, the court addressed Olivero's role in the offense. If a defendant is a minimal participant in criminal activity, his offense level is to be decreased by four levels. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a). If he is a minor participant, the reduction is two levels, and if his role is somewhere in between, the reduction is three levels. Id. § 3B1.2. The court awarded Olivero a 4-point minimal-role reduction. It found that the government had offered to recommend this reduction as part of the proposed plea agreement and, in the court's view, had engaged in improper fact-bargaining by taking different positions. 14 In essence, the court stated, the prosecution's change of position had burdened Olivero's right to insist on a jury trial. 110 Based on these calculations, Olivero's Guidelines sentencing range was 33 to 41 months. The court departed upwards by seven months because Olivero was in with these people and not some bit player and because the conspiracy was extraordinarily extensive and dangerous — facts it considered not sufficiently reflected in the Guidelines range. 111 The defendant had not advanced the arguments used by the district court to deny the gun enhancement or to grant the minimal participant downward departure. From what we can tell of the record, Olivero did not allege that the prosecution was retaliating against him for insisting on trial, much less offer any evidence in support of such a claim. Instead, the court raised the fact-bargaining issue sua sponte. It also placed the initial burden on the prosecution to explain itself. 15 112 On June 18, 2004, after the defendants had appealed their convictions and jurisdiction over their cases was in this court, the district court, sua sponte, published an 80-page advisory opinion (which it styled as a sentencing memorandum) in which it expanded upon its reasons for sanctioning the government. See Green, 346 F.Supp.2d 259. 113