Opinion ID: 857819
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: González

Text: To recap, González came to La Recta from Lloréns Torres in early 2004, distributed cocaine at La Recta as part of Méndez's operation, participated in a shootout at the Calle 4 drug point, murdered Indio, and participated in the murder of Agustín. -24- As with Méndez, González's PSR attributed to him a drug quantity of 54 kilograms of crack cocaine, then used the firstdegree murder cross-reference to reach a base offense level of 43. The PSR then added 4 levels for González's leadership role and 2 levels for using minors in the commission of the offense, for an adjusted offense level of 49, which was treated as an offense level of 43. González's Guidelines sentence was life imprisonment. González filed objections to the PSR, in which he argued, inter alia, that the leadership enhancement was excessive because he was not the main leader of the conspiracy, and that, in the interest of justice, the murder cross-reference should not be applied because he had been acquitted of the murders in state court and the government's witnesses were unreliable. González conceded that the § 2A1.1 cross-reference was authorized . . . in the instant case. The district court denied these objections in a written order before the sentencing hearing. It found that González qualified as a leader under the standard articulated in United States v. Tejada-Beltran, 50 F.3d 105, 111 (1st Cir. 1995), regardless of whether he was the top leader. The court also found that González's acquittal in state court was irrelevant because the evidence at the federal trial had abundantly established both that seven murders were committed in order to further the interests of the drug conspiracy, and that [González] -25- participated either in the planning or execution of four of those murders -- those of Indio and the three Lloréns Torres dealers -- such that the district court could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the cross-reference applied. At his sentencing hearing, González -- then age 37 -- did not renew his objections. Indeed, at his instruction, his counsel did not make arguments. González stated in his allocution that he had had a religious conversion and was now a different man; he needed to be free in order to help others. In calculating the Guidelines range, the district court applied the first-degree murder cross-reference, stating that seven victims were murdered as a manner or means of furthering the conspiracy. It also applied the two enhancements and concluded that the Guidelines sentence was life imprisonment. The court then considered the § 3553(a) factors. It recounted González's history of violent crime and admitted drug use, as well as his leadership role at La Recta. With regard to his personal participation in the murders, the court found: The Defendant also planned and executed the murders of several persons to further the interests [o]f the drug conspiracies. He personally participated in the planning and execution of the killings of Richard Figueroa Perdomo, also known as El Indio, Charles West Isaac, Melvin Reyes Rivera and Oneill Irizarry Mendoza, as a means of advancing the conspiracy. -26- The court concluded that life imprisonment adequately reflected the very serious nature of the offenses as well as González's history and characteristics. The court noted that, while González's religious awakening was encouraging, this did not erase the extreme gravity of the criminal behavior that brought him as a Defendant before this Court. González received a sentence of life imprisonment on Count 1. On appeal, González argues that the district court erred in applying § 2A1.1 because the court's findings were insufficient on the question of whether he had the requisite mental state for first-degree murder. This argument is unpreserved, and the standard of review is plain error. See Colon-Nales, 464 F.3d at 26. We conclude that the district court's findings supported the application of the first-degree murder cross-reference. While the court did not delve into the trial evidence in detail, it clearly stated that González planned and helped to commit four murders. The court had also already found, in its order prior to the sentencing hearing, that the trial evidence certainly established by a preponderance that the co-defendants tried to overtake [the Calle 4] drug point to expand their drug business and that [González] participated in that quest. These statements clearly evince a finding of premeditation, and the trial evidence supports such a finding. González, along with Cabrera, -27- masterminded the shooting of the three men at the Calle 4 drug point and the plan to kill Indio. The Calle 4 attack was intended to eliminate competition and protect the defendants' own drug trafficking activity. In both cases, González recruited other members of the drug conspiracy to assist him in committing the murders, and in both cases González later bragged about his participation.8 González also challenges the imposition of the leadership enhancement, arguing that the testimony at trial was that Méndez was the leader of the conspiracy. Even when such a challenge is preserved, [w]e review the imposition of this particular sentencing enhancement, and any predicate factual findings, for clear error. United States v. Appolon, 695 F.3d 44, 70 (1st Cir. 2012). There was no such error. The relevant inquiry is only whether González was a leader of the conspiracy, not whether he was the leader. There can be more than one leader of a conspiracy. See United States v. Rodríguez-Lozada, 558 F.3d 29, 45 (1st Cir. 2009). The trial evidence revealed that González both led a team that sold crack at La Recta and led various conspiracy members in plans to murder Indio, Agustín, and the Lloréns Torres dealers. The district court found that the evidence at trial clearly established that five or more people participated in the 8 In addition, the trial evidence demonstrated that González planned and helped to execute the murder of Agustín, during which González distracted the victim while Rodríguez shot him. -28- conspiracy; that González was one of the key players in the conspiracy; that he helped plan four murders in furtherance of the conspiracy; and that he, along with other codefendants, engaged in virulent conduct to eliminate competition . . . and to protect their own drug trafficking activities. On this record, we cannot say that imposition of the leadership enhancement was clearly erroneous. Moreover, given our conclusion that the district court properly applied § 2A1.1, the imposition of the leadership enhancement is immaterial to González's sentence, since even before the enhancement he was already subject to the highest offense level of 43. Thus, even if there had been error in adding four levels for leadership -- and there was not -- it would have been harmless error. See Martínez-Medina, 279 F.3d at 124.