Opinion ID: 2790697
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rangel’s Verdict and Sentencing

Text: The district court held a conference to discuss jury instructions, but Rangel’s counsel did not request any instruction regarding drug weight. Specifically, he did not request an instruction that the jury determine drug weight based on Pinkerton principles –- that is, based on drugs with which Rangel was directly involved or drugs that were reasonably foreseeable to him and in furtherance of the conspiracy. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 647-48 (1946). In charging the jury, the only reference to drug weight came in the court’s explanation to the jury of the Special Verdict Form: As to Count 1, if you should find the defendant guilty as to Count 1, then underneath are amounts of drugs and you should also check the amount that you find that was involved as to Count 1. 8 J.A. 203. The court provided no instruction explaining how the jury should determine the drug weight properly attributable to Rangel under the Pinkerton framework. The jury convicted Rangel on all counts and indicated on the Special Verdict Form that the conspiracy “involved” more than 1,000 kg of marijuana. Based on the conviction for conspiring to distribute over 1,000 kg of marijuana, Rangel was subject to a 120-month mandatory minimum sentence. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). The presentence report established his advisory guideline range at 121 to 151 months. In advance of sentencing, Rangel filed a statement in which he “denie[d] having any part of the conspiracy” but did not make any objection to the mandatory minimum sentence or guideline calculation. J.A. 211. Asked at sentencing whether he had anything to say on Rangel’s behalf, his counsel replied, “Well there’s not much you can say. It’s, unfortunately, a mandatory 120-month sentence Mr. Rangel faces. . . . So we’d ask the Court to sentence him to the low end of the guideline range and appoint new counsel for the appeal.” Id. Rangel’s counsel did not address the calculation of the drug weight. The district court judge observed that “[c]onsidering the factors . . . under Section 3553 [is] sort of a useless endeavor in this case because there’s a mandatory.” Id. at 215. The judge, nevertheless, 9 noted that he “simply [could not] think of any kind of a factor that would weigh in [Rangel’s] favor.” Id. The district court sentenced Rangel to 121 months’ incarceration, the low end of his projected guidelines range, as to each of Counts 1, 4, and 7, with the sentences to run concurrently. This Court affirmed the judgment on appeal, and the Supreme Court denied Rangel’s petition for a writ of certiorari. United States v. Rangel, No. 10-5208, 2011 WL 5084583 (4th Cir. Oct. 26, 2011) (per curiam), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1649 (2012).