Opinion ID: 2312412
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Any Error in the Role Enhancement was Harmless

Text: In any event, even if the District Court could be said to have committed legal error by calling Alcantara a supervisor rather than a leader or organizer, or by imposing any role enhancement at all, any such error was harmless. Moreover, where, as here, the record indicates clearly that the district court would have imposed the same sentence in any event, the error may be deemed harmless. United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47, 68 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 197 (2d Cir.2008) ( en banc ). We hold, for two independent and sufficient reasons, that the record clearly indicates that the role enhancement had no effect on Alcantara's sentence. First, we note that the District Court sentenced Alcantara principally to 120 months' imprisonment. That term of imprisonment constituted the statutory minimum term applicable to his offense of conviction. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). No further departure, short of a safety-valve reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (to which Alcantara does not argue he was entitled), could have reduced his sentence below the statutory minimum. Because Alcantara was sentenced to the statutory minimum term of imprisonment, any error in adding the role enhancement was harmless as a matter of law. Second, and in the alternative, the District Court clearly intended to grant Alcantara a substantial departure from his Guidelines-recommended sentence. The Court calculated that, with a four-level enhancement and other adjustments, Alcantara's final Guidelines level would be 43, which the Court described as high. The Court then went on to observe that, even if Alcantara's objections to the PSRincluding his objection to the four-level enhancementhad been successful, the guidelines would still be high. [22] The Court ultimately imposed a non-Guidelines sentence of 120 months, equivalent to at least a twelve-level departure, in large part to recognize Alcantara's very substantial cooperation. Moreover, the Court clearly indicated its reluctance to sentence Alcantara to an extended term of imprisonment, in part because of his youth. We hold that the Court's statements on the record at sentencing are sufficient for us to conclude that the role enhancement did not affect Alcantara's sentence. We therefore hold that, even if the District Court had not applied the four-level role enhancement, Alcantara's sentence would have been the same, and that any error in arriving at his sentence was harmless.