Opinion ID: 202770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Role Enhancement and Booker Remand

Text: 51 Finally, Rivera-Rodríguez argues that the district court erred by imposing a two-level increase for his role in the offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). Although he concedes that he stipulated to his role in the offense as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor, Rivera-Rodríguez contends that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the sentencing judge's determination that the enhancement was warranted. 4 Additionally, Rivera-Rodríguez asks that his case be remanded to the district court for resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), on the ground that there is a reasonable probability of a lower sentence under an advisory guidelines system. These arguments may be quickly dispatched.
52 At the bail review hearing on January 29, 2003, the government indicated that Rivera-Rodríguez was involved in the upper echelons of the [drug-trafficking] organization, and had delegated authority to others to make transactions on his behalf. The government also introduced an organizational chart of the conspiracy and asserted that Rivera-Rodríguez had acted as the right hand of the leader of the organization. According to the plea agreement, therefore, Rivera-Rodríguez received a two-level increase in his base offense level for his role in the offense as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). At the sentencing hearing, the district court accepted this stipulation and applied the enhancement without making specific findings to support its conclusion. Rivera-Rodríguez did not object. On appeal, Rivera-Rodríguez now argues that there was no factual basis for his enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). 53 Where a defendant fails to object in the district court to a sentencing enhancement, we review that enhancement only for plain error. See United States v. Torres-Velazquez, 480 F.3d 100, 103 (1st Cir. 2007). Ordinarily, defendants should be held to the terms of a plea agreement that they knowingly and voluntarily accept. United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14, 28 (1st Cir.2001). A plea agreement is akin to a contract, binding upon the prosecution and the defense alike. Id. (citing United States v. Ortiz-Santiago, 211 F.3d 146, 151 (1st Cir.2000)). Thus, although stipulations are normally not binding on a district court, should the court decide to accept and act upon a stipulation for sentencing purposes, the parties will usually be firmly bound. Id. at 28. We have acknowledged that: 54 [t]his general rule will apply when, for example, a defendant stipulates to a matter of fact or to the applicability of a sentencing guideline (the legal meaning of which is pellucid) to the unique facts of her case. After all, the defendant knows what she has done, and has little cause for complaint if the district court takes her at her word. 55 Id. To hold anything else would be to reduce stipulations to mere inconsequential gestures. United States v. Sandles, 80 F.3d 1145, 1148 (7th Cir.1996). Moreover, even if Rivera-Rodríguez were not bound by his stipulation, we note that the record clearly supports the district court's determination. See United States v. García-Morales, 382 F.3d 12, 20 (1st Cir. 2004); United States v. Medina, 167 F.3d 77, 80 (1st Cir.1999). Accordingly, the court's two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) was not in error.
56 Finally, Rivera-Rodríguez contends that his case should be remanded to the district court for resentencing under Booker, on the ground that there is a reasonable probability of a lower sentence under an advisory guidelines system. Rivera-Rodríguez concedes, however, that he did not preserve his claim under Booker; we therefore review only for plain error. See United States v. Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d 68, 75 (1st Cir.2005). 57 In support of his claim, Rivera-Rodríguez makes three arguments. First, he argues that the district court should not have relied solely on the guideline goals of deterrence and punishment, when under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), a number of other factors must now be considered in setting the appropriate sentence. Second, he asserts that the sentencing judge would not have relied on testimony from the trial of Rivera-Rodríguez's co-defendants if he had known that his sentencing findings had to be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Third, Rivera-Rodríguez argues that, under an advisory guidelines system, the district court is now free to consider personal characteristics and other mitigating factors that militate toward a more lenient sentence. 58 Rivera-Rodríguez, however, has not shown a reasonable probability — not even a possibility — that the district court would have imposed a different (more lenient) sentence had it understood that the sentencing guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. United States v. González-Mercado, 402 F.3d 294, 303 (1st Cir. 2005). Pre- Booker, a district court was free to consider all of the factors listed in § 3553(a) in determining an appropriate sentence within the applicable guideline range. The district court, here, noted that two of those factors, deterrence and punishment, were significant factors to be considered. The court's emphasis on deterrence and punishment, however, does not mean that it did not consider the other enumerated factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence. In this instance, it only means that the court believed that deterrence and punishment were particularly relevant in Rivera-Rodríguez's circumstances. 59 Rivera-Rodríguez's second argument, that the district court would not have relied on testimony from the trial of Rivera-Rodríguez's co-defendants had it known that its sentencing findings had to be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is based on a false assumption: post- Booker, a district court's sentencing findings need not be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See Antonakopoulos, 399 F.3d at 75 (The error is not that a judge (by a preponderance of the evidence) determined facts under the Guidelines which increased a sentence beyond that authorized by the jury verdict or an admission by the defendant; the error is only that the judge did so in a mandatory Guidelines system.). 60 Rivera-Rodríguez's third argument fails as well. Pre- Booker, a district court had discretion to consider a defendant's personal characteristics in deciding where to sentence the defendant within the guideline range. See, e.g., U.S.S.G. § 5H1.1-12. Indeed, defense counsel argued at the sentencing hearing that Rivera-Rodríguez was a first time offender, had a stable marriage and a substantial job history, voluntarily abandoned the conspiracy well before his arrest, and had undertaken rehabilitation efforts in prison. The district court, however, was not persuaded. Given that the court sentenced Rivera-Rodríguez to the high-end of the guideline range, it is likely that the court would impose the same sentence under an advisory system. See González-Mercado, 402 F.3d at 304 (When, under a mandatory guidelines regime, a sentencing court has elected to sentence the defendant substantially above the bottom of the range, that is a telling indication that the court, if acting under an advisory guidelines regime, would in all likelihood have imposed the same sentence.). Accordingly, we find that Rivera-Rodríguez has failed to show a reasonable probability of a more lenient sentence on remand. 5