Opinion ID: 2669099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Where, as here, a sentencing appeal follows a guilty plea, we glean the relevant facts from the change-of-plea colloquy, the unchallenged portions of the presentence investigation report (PSI Report), and the record of the disposition hearing. United States v. Vargas, 560 F.3d 45, 47 (1st Cir. 2009). On the evening of June 16, 2011, state and local law enforcement officers detained the appellant and administered Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 471 (1966), after he was seen selling drugs in Union, Maine. The appellant admitted that (in the surveilled sale) he had sold 20 pounds of marijuana for roughly $29,000. He likewise admitted that he recently had acquired around 600 pounds of marijuana and sold 400 to 450 pounds of it to a customer in New Hampshire. Moreover, the appellant acknowledged that he had 80 to 100 pounds of marijuana in a stash house in Portland, Maine, and he offered to lead the officers to it. -2- The officers accepted the appellant's invitation. En route, the appellant rethought his original estimate and told the officers that the amount of marijuana at the stash house was only 40 to 50 pounds. The officers retrieved the marijuana, which weighed 42.2 pounds. On September 14, 2011, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Maine indicted the appellant for, inter alia, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.1 See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The indictment contemplated that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D), which stipulates a maximum sentence of 5 years for distribution of up to 50 kilograms of marijuana, would apply. The appellant moved to suppress the statements that he had made following his arrest. At the suppression hearing before a magistrate judge, the appellant testified that he had twice requested an attorney during the stop, only to be ignored. He further testified that he had cooperated in part because an officer had threatened to arrest everyone he knew if he did not. Four law enforcement officers testified to the contrary. The magistrate judge found that the appellant had neither asked for an attorney nor been subjected to threats. After reviewing the credible evidence, the magistrate judge recommended 1 Although the indictment originally included additional counts for distribution of marijuana and for forfeiture, those counts were voluntarily dismissed and do not figure in this appeal. -3- against suppression. The district judge accepted the magistrate