Opinion ID: 6344998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Drugs and Money-Laundering Convictions

Text: In evaluating this appeal, it helps to review how the probation office should have structured the PSR and how its skipping steps has led to the need for a resentencing. First, as mentioned, the PSR didn’t separate the drug and money-laundering counts into two separate groups of closely related counts. Instead, citing § 3D1.2(d), the PSR immediately lumped the seven drug-related counts and the two money-launderingrelated counts into a single “Count Group 1.” Apparently, the probation office mistakenly believed that the drug and money-laundering offenses immediately grouped together because their separate guidelines—§§ 2S1.1 and 2D1.1—are listed in the table at § 3D1.2(d) (though, importantly, in separate rows).5 Second, the PSR should have calculated a total offense level for each of the two groups of closely related counts. For the drug-conviction group, the PSR should have calculated a base offense level of 32, added two levels for maintaining a drug premises, and then added three more levels for an aggravating-role adjustment.6 That minus three 5 If the Guidelines Manual contemplated this immediate grouping across the § 3D1.2(d) table’s rows, it wouldn’t need to direct that the closely related groups of drug convictions and of money-laundering convictions later be grouped under § 3D1.2(c). See § 2S1.1 cmt. n.6. In grouping under § 3D1.2(c), a court must calculate the total offense levels for each group so that it can apply the one with the highest total level. See § 3D1.3(a); see also § 3D1.3 cmt. n.2. 6 As we understand it, Arellanes-Portillo no longer contests that he would qualify for the three-level aggravating-role adjustment for his drug offenses. Even if he did, having reviewed the record, we see more than sufficient evidence to support it. 7 Appellate Case: 20-3165 Document: 010110690171 Date Filed: 05/27/2022 Page: 8 levels for timely acceptance of responsibility would leave a total offense level of 34. As for the money-laundering group, the PSR should have calculated a base offense level of 34 (the Chapter Two calculation for the underlying drug offenses, as explained above); added two levels for the convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1956; added zero, two, or three levels for an aggravating-role adjustment (after applying § 1B1.3 to isolate any acts and omissions qualifying as relevant conduct to the money-laundering offenses as then applied to § 3B1.1); and then subtracted three levels for acceptance of responsibility. That would leave a total offense level of 33, 35, or 36.7 Third, under § 3D1.2(c), as directed by § 2S1.1’s Application Note 6, the PSR should have grouped the two separate drug and money-laundering groups. Under that grouping rule, the PSR would apply whichever group yielded the higher total offense level.8