Opinion ID: 857819
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Méndez

Text: Recall that Méndez controlled the drug point at La Recta, and that he beat, shot, and murdered others in furtherance of the drug conspiracy. Méndez's presentence investigation report (PSR) attributed to him a drug quantity of 54 kilograms of crack cocaine, based on Sánchez's testimony about the amount of crack she had sold as a runner. However, the PSR did not reach its base offense level recommendation by using this quantity. Instead, it explained that, since seven (7) victims were killed in order to keep control of the drug point and/or in an effort to take over the drug point in another housing project, a Cross Reference to USSG § 2A1.1 is authorized pursuant to USSG § 2D1.1(d)(1), establishing[] a base offense level of forty-three (43). The PSR then added 4 levels for Méndez's leadership role and 2 levels for using minors in the commission of the offense, for an adjusted offense level of 49. -15- But because the Guidelines treat an offense level greater than 43 as an offense level of 43, see U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A, app. n.2, Méndez's final offense level was 43. His Guidelines sentence was life imprisonment. Méndez filed written objections to the PSR, in which he argued, inter alia, that the recommendation of a life sentence was unreasonable. He noted that he had never been charged with the murders on which the cross-reference was based, and he argued that this situation presented a Confrontation Clause problem. He also asserted that the life sentence guideline allowed the government to circumvent the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), which addresses mandatory life sentences for certain repeat violent offenders. Finally, he argued that a life sentence conflicted with the purposes of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Méndez did not object to the PSR's use of the murder cross-reference (instead of the drug quantity) to establish the base offense level, but rather argued generally against any Guidelines recommendation of life imprisonment.5 At the sentencing hearing, Méndez's counsel recounted the defendant's difficult childhood and asked that the court consider a term of 30 years. Méndez's counsel did not allude to the murder 5 The district court granted certain of Méndez's factual objections to the PSR, none of which is relevant to this appeal. In its ruling on the other objections, the court did not address Méndez's objection to the Guidelines recommendation. -16- cross-reference. And Méndez expressed no remorse in his allocution. The government, meanwhile, sought life sentences on both counts, given the extensive testimony about Méndez's violence, including murder, and the fact that he was responsible for the sale of at least 18 kilograms of crack cocaine each year during the life of the conspiracy. The district court, in calculating the Guidelines range, 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 suggested in the PSR and concluded that the Guidelines range was life imprisonment. The court then considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. While recognizing the hardships of Méndez's upbringing, the court concluded that Méndez had been one of the major players of the drug trafficking organization at La Recta. With regard to the murders, the court found: There is also video and testimonial evidence of Defendant Mendez Roldan's direct participation in the murder of Alexis Rivera Feliciano, also known as pata de palo and as gemelo, on January 7, 2003. Defendant is seen in the video of the January 7, 2003, shooting of Rivera Feliciano carrying a shoulder weapon, and a Government witness testified that she saw Defendant with a rifle shooting directly at Rivera Feliciano, and that in her presence Defendant said that Rivera Feliciano had been arrested by federal authorities, yet had served no time. There is also trial evidence that Defendant killed Luis A. Ortiz Santos, also known as Cleca, on May 27, 2003, not because -17- Defendant suspected him to be an informant, like Rivera Feliciano, but in reprisal of Ortiz Santos' wife being an informant at the Canales housing project. Now, this evidence established that these killings were in furtherance of the drug conspiracy charge. Ultimately, the court found that the advisory guideline of life imprisonment adequately served the § 3553(a) purposes of punishment and deterrence in Méndez's case, and it imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on Count 1 and a consecutive sentence of ten years' imprisonment on Count 2. On appeal, Méndez makes three types of arguments against the life imprisonment sentence. First, he argues that the district court made a procedural error in applying the murder crossreference because the court allegedly acted under the false and restricted notion that it lacked any discretion to impose a different sentence [than life imprisonment] because § 2D1.1(d)(1) necessarily prohibited any sentence other than natural life under custody. See United States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69, 72 (1st Cir. 2008) (appellate review of a district court's sentence first entails asking whether the court made any procedural errors, including treating the Guidelines as mandatory (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007))). Because Méndez did not raise this objection before the district court, our review is only for plain error. See United States v. Colon-Nales, 464 F.3d 21, 26 (1st Cir. 2006). Plain error is a very difficult standard to meet: -18- the defendant must show that the trial court committed an error, that the error was 'plain,' . . . that the error affected the substantial rights of the [defendant, and that] . . . the error 'seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' Id. at 25 (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993)). Méndez's contention would fail under any standard of review, let alone the exacting standard of plain error. There is no evidence in the record that the district court believed a life sentence to be mandatory; to the contrary, the court specifically recognized the advisory nature of the Guidelines calculation. The court also explicitly considered potentially mitigating information under the § 3553(a) factors, though it ultimately rejected those arguments. And it plainly was correct in rejecting the proposition that, under § 3553(a), a sentence of life imprisonment is never permissible. At oral argument in this appeal, Méndez offered a variation on his procedural challenge. This time, he asserted that the district court's error was its failure to make specific findings that Méndez's actions satisfied the first-degree murder requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a), which were necessary to support the application of § 2A1.1. He had not asked the district court for such findings. He also argued that the district court erred in failing to calculate a drug quantity, since without that -19- calculation the court could not have determined whether the murder offense level was greater than the drug trafficking offense level. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d)(1). These arguments, at best, call for plain error review, even assuming they were not waived. We find no error in the district court's application of § 2A1.1. Although the court, when it articulated its Guidelines calculations, did not specifically explain its reasons for applying the first-degree murder cross-reference, the court made specific findings as to Méndez's role in two murders shortly thereafter, while explaining its sentence. These findings make it clear that the court concluded that Méndez met the premeditation scienter requirement for first-degree murder, and thus for application of § 2A1.1. See 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a) (defining first-degree murder as including, inter alia, any willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing). The court first explained the trial evidence showing that Méndez had formed plans to kill Rivera and Ortiz, and that he had participated in killing both victims because of the perceived threat they posed to the drug operation at La Recta. These findings were consistent with the unchallenged facts recited in Méndez's PSR. There is no doubt that the district court's statements reflect a finding that these murders were premeditated, and the evidence at trial was more than sufficient to support such a finding by a preponderance of the evidence. The court then -20- connected these planned murders to the § 2D1.1(d)(1) crossreference by specifying that the killings were in furtherance of the drug conspiracy. This was enough to support application of the crossreference. Since § 2A1.1 imposes the highest offense level allowed by the Guidelines, no further calculation was necessary: the base offense level under § 2D1.1 necessarily would have been less than or equal to the offense level under § 2A1.1. Méndez thus faced an offense level of 43 regardless of whether it was grounded in the cross-reference or in § 2D1.1.6 Méndez's second argument is that the life sentence was substantively unreasonable. See Politano, 522 F.3d at 72-73 (even when there is no procedural error, the appellate court may review a district court's sentence for substantive reasonableness). Méndez argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the court failed to properly weigh the § 3553(a) factors and the sentence failed to fulfill the sentencing purposes of deterrence and rehabilitation. 6 Méndez also challenges on appeal the imposition of the fourlevel increase for leadership, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), and the two-level increase for use of a minor in the offense, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4. We review the imposition of [a leadership] enhancement, and any predicate factual findings, for clear error. United States v. Appolon, 695 F.3d 44, 70 (1st Cir. 2012). Again, the offense level could go no higher than 43. Even if the enhancements had been in error -- a highly doubtful proposition, given the record -- they could not have affected Méndez's sentence. Thus, any error would have been harmless. See Martínez-Medina, 279 F.3d at 124. -21- Méndez -- age 30 at sentencing -- did raise these arguments at least in part in his objections to the PSR, although he did not renew all of them at the sentencing hearing. Even if we treat Méndez's objections as preserved, and accordingly evaluate them under an abuse of discretion standard, see United States v. Carrasco-de-Jesús, 589 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir. 2009) (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51), his arguments fail. When it comes to substantive reasonableness, a sentencing court's ultimate responsibility is to articulate a plausible rationale and arrive at a sensible result. Id. at 30. The district court fulfilled that responsibility here. The district court considered Méndez's counsel's arguments about Méndez's history, characteristics, and the possibility for rehabilitation if he were not given a life sentence. The court reasonably concluded that the nature and circumstances of the offense -- particularly the extensive evidence of Méndez's acts of violence -- meant that the Guidelines sentence properly reflected the needs for punishment and deterrence. This choice of emphasis among the statutory factors was well within the court's discretion. See United States v. Gibbons, 553 F.3d 40, 47 (1st Cir. 2009) (We will not disturb a well-reasoned decision to give greater weight to particular sentencing factors over others . . . .). Méndez makes a third set of miscellaneous arguments. He alleges that his sentence infringed his Confrontation Clause -22- rights; that it circumvented the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) and 21 U.S.C. § 851; and that, because he was not charged with murder in the indictment, it violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The Apprendi argument rests on the fact that the indictment did not include murder as a charged offense, although it did allege the murders as among the overt acts committed in furtherance of the charged conspiracy. Again, Méndez raised some of these arguments in his objections to the PSR but did not renew them at the sentencing hearing. At any rate, however, these arguments misapprehend the relevant law. We take the arguments in turn. First, the jury found that the quantity of crack cocaine involved in the Count 1 conspiracy was fifty grams or more, which, at the time of the conviction, triggered a statutory maximum sentence of life on Count 1. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) (2010). Méndez's Apprendi argument fails because Apprendi provides only that a jury must find any facts (other than a prior conviction) that would increase the penalty for a crime beyond the otherwise applicable statutory maximum. See 530 U.S. at 490. In fact, we have previously rejected the specific Apprendi argument that Méndez makes.7 See United States v. Newton, 326 F.3d 253, 266 7 González and Rodríguez purport to join Méndez's Apprendibased due process argument. Even if we assume that this statement is enough to avoid waiving the issue, we reject the argument as to González and Rodríguez for the same reasons stated in the text as to Méndez. -23- (1st Cir. 2003) ([Defendant] now requests that we expand Apprendi to require juries to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed murder before the sentencing court is permitted to apply the 'cross-reference' provision of section 2D1.1(d)(1). We decline this invitation to expand Apprendi . . . .). Second, 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) and 21 U.S.C. § 851 are irrelevant to this case. Those provisions address mandatory life sentences for certain repeat violent offenders and the procedural requisites for increasing sentences based on prior convictions. Here, the government did not seek, nor did the district court purport to impose, a mandatory life sentence based on Méndez's prior convictions. As noted above, the court repeatedly acknowledged that the Guidelines range of life imprisonment was advisory, and it was based on Méndez's culpability for the present offense. Finally, there was no Confrontation Clause problem with the sentence. Méndez does not allege that he was denied the opportunity to confront witnesses against him during his trial, and the district court's sentence was based on facts established at that trial.