United States v. Harakaly, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Harakaly, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/23

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2274

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

ERI K HARAKALY,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Ri char d G. St ear ns, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howar d, St ahl , and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Wi l l i am M. Whi t e, J r . , wi t h whom Wi l l i am M. Whi t e, J r . &Associ at es was on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

J enni f er H. Zacks , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whomCar men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f or

appel l ee.

Oct ober 31, 2013


2/23

STAHL, Circuit Judge. Er i k Har akal y pl eaded gui l t y t o

conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e met hamphet ami ne.

Af t er f i ndi ng t hat Har akal y was r esponsi bl e f or a dr ug quant i t y

t hat t r i gger ed a t en- year mandat ory mi ni mum sent ence and t hat he

was i nel i gi bl e f or saf et y- val ve r el i ef f r om t hat mi ni mum, t he

di st r i ct cour t sent enced hi mt o t en year s' i mpr i sonment . Under t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s subsequent deci si on i n Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es,

133 S. Ct . 2151, 2155 ( 2013) , t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n maki ng

t he f act ual f i ndi ng of dr ug quant i t y necessary t o i mpose the

mandatory mi ni mum wher e t he quant i t y was nei t her al l eged i n t he

i ndi ct ment nor admi t t ed by Har akal y at t he t i me of hi s gui l t y pl ea.

Never t hel ess, f i ndi ng t he er r or t o be har ml ess, and f i ndi ng no

mer i t i n Har akal y' s ot her cont ent i ons, we af f i r m.

I. Facts & Background

Dur i ng the cour se of i nvest i gat i ng Scot t Ramsden f or

al l eged dr ug di st r i but i on, t he Massachuset t s St at e Pol i ce and t he

Dr ug Enf or cement Agency det ermi ned t hat Har akal y was Ramsden' s

pr i mary suppl i er of met hamphet ami ne. On August 10, 2010, l aw

enf orcement of f i ci al s i nt er cept ed communi cat i ons bet ween t he t wo

t hat i ndi cat ed t hat Har akal y had r ecent l y sent a shi pment of dr ugs

t o a cour i er , Edmund Levi ne, f or del i ver y t o Ramsden. Shor t l y

t her eaf t er , a Massachuset t s st at e t r ooper st opped Levi ne' s vehi cl e

and f ound a subst ance i n t he t r unk t hat was l ater det er mi ned t o be

189. 9 gr ams of 99. 8% pur e methamphetami ne. Levi ne advi sed

-2-


3/23

i nvest i gat ors t hat Harakal y had sent hi m t he met hamphet ami ne wi t h

di r ect i ons t o del i ver i t t o Ramsden.

A gr and j ur y r etur ned a one- count i ndi ct ment on Sept ember

23, 2010, char gi ng Harakal y, Ramsden, Levi ne, and t wo ot her

i ndi vi dual s wi t h conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e,

and t o di st r i but e, methamphetami ne and gamma hydr oxbut yr i c aci d, i n

vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) and 846. A super sedi ng

i ndi ct ment was r etur ned on Oct ober 27, 2011, char gi ng t he same

i ndi vi dual s, mi nus Ramsden, wi t h conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent

t o di st r i but e, and t o di st r i but e, met hamphet ami ne, i n vi ol at i on of

21 U. S. C. 841( a) ( 1) and 846.

Nei t her i ndi ct ment speci f i ed a dr ug quant i t y. At

Harakal y' s ar r ai gnment on each, t he gover nment st ated t hat t he

maxi mum sent ence he f aced was t went y year s' i mpr i sonment .

On J anuary 20, 2012, Harakal y pl eaded gui l t y wi t hout a

pl ea agr eement . When r eci t i ng t he maxi mum penal t i es, t he

government err oneousl y st at ed t hat he was subj ect t o a maxi mum of

l i f e i mpr i sonment and a t en- year mandat ory mi ni mum "as charged i n

Count One of t he i ndi ct ment . " However , t he government pr ompt l y

cl ar i f i ed t hat , because the i ndi ct ment di d not speci f y any dr ug

quant i t y, t he def aul t st at ut or y maxi mum woul d be t went y year s, see

21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( C) , but asser t ed t hat suf f i ci ent evi dence

woul d be pr esent ed f or t he cour t t o f i nd, by a pr eponder ance of t he

evi dence, t hat Harakal y was account abl e f or more t han f i f t y gr ams

-3-


4/23

of met hamphet ami ne, t r i gger i ng a t en- year mandat ory mi ni mum

sent ence, see i d. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) . When asked whet her Harakal y

conceded any dr ug quant i t y, def ense counsel st ated t hat he di d not .

The gover nment t hen summar i zed t he evi dence t hat i t woul d

have pr esent ed and pr oved beyond a r easonabl e doubt at t r i al ,

i ncl udi ng: ( 1) Levi ne' s admi ssi ons t o i nvest i gat or s t hat Har akal y

suppl i ed t he 189. 9 grams of met hamphet ami ne f ound i n hi s car and

t hat he had pr evi ousl y made ar ound ten del i ver i es, each cont ai ni ng

approxi mat el y f i ve ounces of met hamphet ami ne, t o Ramsden on

Har akal y' s behal f , t ot al i ng appr oxi mat el y 1, 400 gr ams; and ( 2)

evi dence t hat Harakal y was Ramsden' s sol e suppl i er of

met hamphet ami ne, and that Ramsden woul d send Har akal y payment s,

usual l y i n t he amount of $10, 000, vi a FedEx, i n exchange f or

methamphet ami ne, usual l y i n t he amount of f i ve ounces. The cour t

t hen asked Harakal y whether , as al l eged by t he government , he had

been i nvol ved i n an agr eement t o di st r i but e methamphetami ne, "as of

yet i n an undetermi ned quant i t y, " t hrough Ramsden and ot hers.

Harakal y di sput ed t he asser t i on t hat he was Ramsden' s sol e

suppl i er , but sai d t hat he ot her wi se agr eed wi t h t he gover nment ' s

asser t i ons. The cour t accept ed hi s gui l t y pl ea.

Fol l owi ng a pr esent ence i nvest i gat i on, t he pr obat i on

depart ment pr epared a pr esent ence r epor t ( PSR) t hat est i mated t hat

Har akal y was r esponsi bl e f or bet ween f i ve and f i f t een ki l ogr ams of

-4-


5/23

met hamphet ami ne, 1 cor r espondi ng t o a base of f ense l evel of 36.

Af t er a t hr ee- l evel i ncr ease based on t he det er mi nat i on t hat

Har akal y had occupi ed a manager i al or super vi sory rol e i n t he

conspi r acy and a t hr ee- l evel decr ease f or accept ance of

r esponsi bi l i t y, hi s tot al of f ense l evel was 36. Combi ned wi t h a

cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of I , Har akal y' s sent enci ng gui del i nes

r ange was 188235 mont hs. The r eport al so i ndi cated t hat hi s

r esponsi bi l i t y f or more t han f i f t y gr ams of met hamphet ami ne

subj ect ed hi m t o a t en- year mandatory mi ni mum sent ence.

Har akal y made mul t i pl e obj ect i ons t o t he PSR, di sput i ng,

among ot her t hi ngs: ( 1) t he accur acy of t he dr ug- quant i t y

cal cul at i on, ar gui ng t hat he was r esponsi bl e f or onl y 1. 5 t o 5

ki l ogr ams of met hamphet ami ne; ( 2) t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he r ol e

enhancement ; ( 3) t he const i t ut i onal i t y under Appr endi v. New

J er sey, 530 U. S. 466 ( 2000) , of t he i mposi t i on of a mandat or y

mi ni mum sent ence based upon a f i ndi ng, by a pr eponderance of t he

evi dence, of t he t r i gger i ng dr ug quant i t y wher e t he quant i t y was

nei t her al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment , nor submi t t ed t o and vot ed on by

1 Thi s cal cul at i on was based upon: ( 1) f or t y- f our FedExr ecei pt s f or shi pment s of $10, 000 i n cash f r omRamsden t o Harakal yi n exchange f or f i ve ounces of met hamphet ami ne ( 141. 7 grams pershi pment x 44 shi pment s = 6. 23 ki l ogr ams) ; ( 2) Ramsden' s prof f er

t hat , bet ween J anuar y 2009 and Sept ember 2010, he pur chasedappr oxi mat el y f i ve ounces of methamphetami ne f r om Harakal y ever yt wo t o f our weeks ( est i mated to amount t o 3. 7 ki l ogr ams) ; and ( 3)Levi ne' s s t atement t hat he had made appr oxi matel y t en del i ver i es,of appr oxi mat el y f i ve ounces of met hamphet ami ne each, t o Ramsden onHar akal y' s behal f ( 141. 7 gr ams per del i ver y x 10 del i ver i es = 1. 417ki l ogr ams) .

-5-


6/23

t he gr and j ur y, nor admi t t ed by hi m dur i ng t he pl ea hear i ng; and

( 4) t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he t en- year mandat or y mi ni mum,

corr espondi ng t o 841( b) ( 1) ( A) , wher e t he gover nment had

cont i nuousl y r epr esent ed that hi s maxi mum sent ence was t went y

year s, cor r espondi ng t o 841( b) ( 1) ( C) . He r epeated t hese

argument s i n hi s sent enci ng memorandum and i n t wo sent enci ng

hear i ngs, wi t h t he f i r st , on August 6, 2012, f ocusi ng on dr ug

quant i t y and t he second, on Oct ober 10, 2012, f ocusi ng on t he r ol e

enhancement .

At t he f i r st sent enci ng hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t

r ej ect ed Har akal y' s Appr endi ar gument , not i ng t hat , under t he

t hen- cur r ent st at e of l aw, Appr endi and i t s pr ogeny appl i ed onl y to

f act s t hat i ncr eased t he penal t y beyond t he ot her wi se- pr escr i bed

st at ut or y maxi mum. Wi t h r espect t o t he not i ce pr obl em r ai sed by

t he gover nment ' s r epeated i ndi cat i on t hat i t was pr oceedi ng under

841( b) ( 1) ( C) , t he cour t st at ed t hat Har akal y coul d move t o

wi t hdr aw hi s gui l t y pl ea i f he bel i eved i t was not made

i nt el l i gent l y - - an of f er t hat he r ej ect ed. Fi nal l y, t he cour t

suggest ed t he possi bi l i t y of hol di ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng

r egar di ng dr ug quant i t y. At t hat poi nt , af t er conf er r i ng wi t h

counsel , Har akal y conceded r esponsi bi l i t y f or a quant i t y

cor r espondi ng t o a base of f ense l evel of 34 - - whi ch woul d st i l l

-6-


7/23

exceed t he ten- year mandat or y mi ni mum t r i gger i ng quant i t y - - wi t h

t he i nt ent of ar gui ng f or saf et y- val ve r el i ef . 2

At t he second sent enci ng hear i ng, t he cour t noted t hat

t he Supreme Cour t was t hen consi der i ng whet her t he Appr endi

doctr i ne ext ends t o j udi ci al f i ndi ngs of f act t hat t r i gger

mandatory mi ni mum sent ences. Af t er t he gover nment pr of f er ed

Ramsden' s t est i mony and var i ous exhi bi t s r egar di ng Har akal y' s r ol e

i n t he conspi r acy, t he di st r i ct j udge f ound, wi t h evi dent

r el uct ance, t hat t he gover nment had met i t s bur den i n demonst r at i ng

t he pr opr i et y of a rol e enhancement :

I have l ooked f or aut hor i t y. I cannotf i nd i t . . . . I do not see aut hor i t y t hatal l ows me t o di sr egar d t he saf et y val veconsi der at i ons . . . . Havi ng hear d t het est i mony t hi s morni ng and havi ng r evi ewed t heexhi bi t s, and r ecogni zi ng t hat t he st andar d i sa pr eponder ance- of - t he- evi dence st andar d, I donot t hi nk t her e i s any basi s on whi ch I coul dnot [ si c] concl ude t hat Mr . Har akal y di d not

act as a manager . . . . I t hi nk t hegover nment ' s evi dence pr obabl y woul d sat i sf y ar easonabl e- doubt st andar d, al t hough I am notgoi ng t o vent ur e t hat opi ni on because,dependi ng on what t he Supreme Cour t does wi t ht he case cur r ent l y bef or e i t , we may ber evi si t i ng t hi s i ssue i n t he near f ut ur e,agai n, dependi ng on t he out come of t hatdeci si on.

. . . .

2 Under t he saf et y- val ve pr ovi si on, i f t he sent enci ng cour tmakes f i ve speci f i c f act ual f i ndi ngs, i t may i mpose a sent encebel ow t he mandat ory mi ni mum t hat woul d ot herwi se appl y. See 18U. S. C. 3553( f ) ; U. S. S. G. 5C1. 2.

-7-


8/23

I t hi nk t he sent ence, agai n, i ssi gni f i cant l y gr eat er t han war r ant ed under t heci r cumst ances, but , agai n, t hi s i s one oft hose cases where Congr ess has di ct at ed t hesent ence, and I am, of cour se, sworn to obeyt he l aw, and I am goi ng t o have t o i n t hi s

ci r cumst ance.

Har akal y was sent enced t o a t en- year t er mof i ncar cer at i on f ol l owed

by a f i ve- year t er m of super vi sed r el ease. Af t er announci ng t he

sent ence, t he cour t agai n made r ef erence t o t he pendi ng Supreme

Cour t deci si on, and "speci f i cal l y f or t he r ecor d pr eser ve[ d]

[ Har akal y' s] r i ght , shoul d t he Supr eme Cour t change the l aw wi t h

r espect t o j udi ci al f act f i ndi ng r egar di ng sent enci ng mat t er s. "

Def ense counsel af f i r med t hat t he r ecor d shoul d so r ef l ect . Thi s

appeal f ol l owed.

II. Analysis

Harakal y r ai ses thr ee pr i mary argument s on appeal . He

ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y i mposed a t en- year

mandat ory mi ni mum sent ence under 841( b) ( 1) ( A) because: ( 1) t he

at t r i but abl e dr ug quant i t y was not st at ed i n t he i ndi ct ment , nor

was i t pr oven t o a j ur y beyond a r easonabl e doubt or st i pul ated by

Har akal y i n hi s pl ea; ( 2) hi s r ol e i n t he conspi r acy al so was not

st at ed i n t he i ndi ct ment , nor was i t pr oven t o t he j ur y beyond a

r easonabl e doubt or st i pul at ed by Har akal y i n hi s pl ea; and ( 3) i t

was er r or t o f ai l t o gi ve hi mpr oper not i ce of t he appl i cabi l i t y of

t he mandat or y mi ni mumsent ence wher e t he government had r epeatedl y

i ndi cat ed that i t was proceedi ng under 841( b) ( 1) ( C) .

-8-


9/23

A. Alleyne Error

1. The Alleyne Decision

When Har akal y commenced t hi s appeal , hi s ar gument s were

squar el y f or ecl osed by Supr eme Cour t and Fi r st Ci r cui t pr ecedent .

I n Appr endi , t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat , " [ o] t her t han t he f act of

a pr i or convi ct i on, any f act t hat i ncreases t he penal t y f or a cr i me

beyond the pr escr i bed st at ut ory maxi mum must be submi t t ed t o a

j ury, and proved beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " 530 U. S. at 490.

However , i n Har r i s v. Uni t ed St at es, 536 U. S. 545 ( 2002) , t he

Supr eme Cour t di st i ngui shed f act s t hat i ncr ease a sent ence beyond

a st at ut or y maxi mumf r omf act s t hat t r i gger or i ncr ease a mandat or y

mi ni mumsent ence. The Cour t hel d t hat , wher e a def endant had been

convi cted of car r yi ng a f i r ear m i n r el at i on t o a dr ug- t r af f i cki ng

of f ense, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r by maki ng a f act ual f i ndi ng

t hat he had br andi shed the weapon, t hus exposi ng hi m t o a

hei ght ened mandat ory mi ni mum sent ence. I d. at 568. The Cour t

st at ed t hat "br andi shi ng" was a sent enci ng f act or , r at her t han an

el ement of t he of f ense, t hat "need not be al l eged i n t he

i ndi ct ment , submi t t ed t o t he j ur y, or pr oved beyond a reasonabl e

doubt . " I d. Under Har r i s, a di st r i ct cour t coul d make dr ug-

quant i t y det er mi nat i ons, by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence, t hat

t r i gger ed or i ncr eased mandat or y mi ni mum sent ences. See, e. g. ,

Uni t ed St at es v. Goodi ne, 326 F. 3d 26, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

-9-


10/23

However , af t er Har akal y f i l ed hi s openi ng br i ef on

appeal , but bef or e t he gover nment f i l ed i t s br i ef , t he Supr eme

Cour t handed down i t s deci si on i n Al l eyne. Over r ul i ng Har r i s, t he

Cour t hel d t hat t he Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o t r i al by j ur y requi r es

t hat t he Appr endi doct r i ne appl y equal l y t o f act s t hat i ncr ease a

mandat or y mi ni mum sent ence. 3 See 133 S. Ct . at 2155. Ther ef ore,

Har akal y' s openi ng ar gument - - t hat t hi s cour t shoul d r econsi der

i t s ear l i er cases hol di ng t hat f act s t hat i ncr ease t he mandat or y

mi ni mum ar e sent enci ng f act or s, r at her t han el ement s of t he cr i me,

t hat may be f ound by t he cour t by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence

- - has si nce been set t l ed i n hi s f avor by t he Supr eme Cour t . 4

2. Standard of Review

Har akal y pr eserved hi s Al l eyne cl ai ms by obj ect i ng t o t he

i mposi t i on of a mandatory mi ni mum sent ence based upon j udi ci al

f i ndi ngs, by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence, of dr ug quant i t y and

hi s manager i al r ol e. Thi s cour t r evi ews unpr eserved Appr endi

er r or s f or pl ai n er r or and pr eser ved Appr endi er r or s f or har ml ess

er r or . See Uni t ed St at es v. Pr ez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d 1, 14, 17 ( 1st

Ci r . 2003) . Si nce Al l eyne i s an extensi on of t he Appr endi

3 We not e that Al l eyne di d not r each t he quest i on of t hecont i nued vi t al i t y of Al mendar ez- Tor r es v. Uni t ed St at es, 523 U. S.

224 ( 1998) , i n whi ch t he Cour t " r ecogni zed a narr ow except i on t ot hi s gener al r ul e f or t he f act of a pr i or convi cti on. " Al l eyne,133 S. Ct . at 2160 n. 1. Li kewi se, we need not do so t oday.

4 Because Al l eyne was deci ded bef ore Harakal y' s case becamef i nal , i t appl i es t o hi s di r ect appeal t o t hi s cour t . See Gr i f f i t hv. Kent ucky, 479 U. S. 314, 328 ( 1987) .

-10-


11/23

doct r i ne, t he same st andar ds shoul d appl y t o Al l eyne er r or s.

Accord Uni t ed St ates v. Hal l , __ _ F. App' x ___ , 2013 WL 5226994, at

*12 ( 11t h Ci r . Sept . 18, 2013) ( unpubl i shed per cur i am opi ni on)

( r evi ewi ng unpr eser ved Al l eyne er r or f or pl ai n er r or ) ; Uni t ed

St ates v. Her nandez, __ _ F. 3d __ _, 2013 WL 4804323, at *5 ( 7t h Ci r .

Sept . 10, 2013) ( same) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mack, ___ F. 3d ___, 2013

WL 4767176, at *1012 ( 6t h Ci r . Sept . 6, 2013) ( same) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Bayl or , ___ F. App' x ___ , 2013 WL 3943145, at *13 ( 4t h

Ci r . Aug. 1, 2013) ( unpubl i shed per cur i am opi ni on) ( appl yi ng

har ml ess- er r or r evi ew t o pr eser ved Al l eyne/ Appr endi er r or ) .

I n hi s r epl y br i ef , Har akal y suggest s t hat t he

har ml ess- er r or st andar d does not appl y because Al l eyne est abl i shed

a const i t ut i onal er r or . However , he does not el abor at e on t hi s

cl ai m; i t i s cont ai ned ent i r el y i n a headi ng pr ecedi ng a sect i on

t hat makes no ment i on of t he st andard of r evi ew an appel l at e cour t

shoul d appl y t o an Al l eyne er r or , f ocusi ng i nst ead on t he

r easonabl e- doubt st andar d t hat t he di st r i ct cour t must appl y, i n

t he f i r st i nst ance, t o al l el ement s of t he of f ense. "[ I ] ssues

adver t ed t o i n a per f unct ory manner , unaccompani ed by some ef f or t

at devel oped argument at i on, are deemed wai ved. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) . I n any event , t he Supr eme

Cour t has made abundant l y cl ear t hat most const i t ut i onal er r or s are

subj ect t o har ml ess- er r or r evi ew; onl y i n r ar e cases wi l l t hey be

deemed st r uct ur al er r or s t hat woul d al ways r equi r e r ever sal . See,

-11-


12/23

e. g. , Washi ngt on v. Recuenco, 548 U. S. 212, 222 ( 2006) ( hol di ng

t hat pr eser ved Appr endi / Bl akel y er r or i s not st r uct ur al and i s

subj ect t o har ml ess- er r or r evi ew) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cot t on, 535

U. S. 625, 631 ( 2002) ( t r eat i ng unpr eserved Appr endi er r or as

non- st r uctur al er r or subj ect t o pl ai n- er r or r evi ew) . I n l i ght of

t he l ong l i ne of cases subj ect i ng pr eser ved Appr endi er r or s t o

har ml ess- er r or r evi ew, t her e woul d appear t o be no basi s f or

f i ndi ng Al l eyne er r or t o be one of t hose r ar e cases t o whi ch

har ml ess- er r or r evi ew does not appl y. 5

Under harml ess- er r or r evi ew, because an Appr endi ( and

t her ef or e Al l eyne) er r or i s of const i t ut i onal di mensi on, "t he

gover nment must prove t hat t he er r or was harml ess beyond a

r easonabl e doubt , or , put anot her way, t hat i t can f ai r l y be sai d

beyond any r easonabl e doubt t hat t he assi gned er r or di d not

cont r i but e t o t he resul t of whi ch t he appel l ant compl ai ns. "

Pr ez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d at 17.

5 We r ecogni ze t hat some cour t s have summar i l y vacat edsent ences, wi t hout any di scussi on of t he appr opr i at e st andar d ofr evi ew, wher e t her e was Al l eyne er r or bel ow. See, e. g. , Uni t edSt ates v. Donovan, ___ F. App' x ___, 2013 WL 4792866, at *7 ( 6t hCi r . Sept . 9, 2013) ( unpubl i shed) ( vacat i ng sent ence, wi t h no

di scussi on of har ml essness or pl ai n er r or , based on j udi ci alf i ndi ng t hat f i r ear m was di schar ged wher e j ur y convi ct ed onl y ofusi ng f i r ear m) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Li r a, 725 F. 3d 1043, 104445 ( 9t hCi r . 2013) ( same) . Wi t h r espect , absent any i ndi cat i on t hat t hesecour t s even consi der ed t he appr opr i at e st andar d of r evi ew, t hecases do not per suade us t hat a di f f er ent st andar d shoul d appl y t oAl l eyne er r or t han t o Appr endi er r or .

-12-


13/23

3. Drug-Quantity Calculation

The par t i es agree t hat , because t he drug quant i t y t hat

t r i gger ed t he mandatory mi ni mum sent ence was not al l eged i n t he

i ndi ct ment or st i pul at ed by Har akal y at t he t i me of hi s gui l t y

pl ea, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s dr ug- quant i t y f i ndi ng const i t ut ed

Al l eyne er r or .

The gover nment ar gues t hat , i n l i ght of overwhel mi ng and

uncont est ed evi dence t hat Harakal y was r esponsi bl e f or more t han

f i f t y gr ams of methamphetami ne, t he Al l eyne err or was harml ess

beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " I n dr ug- t r af f i cki ng cases i nvol vi ng

Appr endi err ors, we somet i mes have t r eat ed t he pr esence of

over whel mi ng evi dence of t he requi si t e dr ug t ypes and quant i t i es as

a pr oxy f or har ml essness. " Pr ez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d at 18 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( sent enci ng f ol l owi ng j ur y t r i al ) ; see

al so Uni t ed St at es v. Mor gan, 384 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2004)

( sent enci ng f ol l owi ng gui l t y pl ea; not i ng, i n di ct a, t hat , "[ i ] n

t he post - Appr endi wor l d, t hi s cour t adopt ed a r ul e t hat any such

er r or i n sent enci ng shoul d be hel d harml ess so l ong as t he evi dence

f or t he t r i al j udge' s f act ual f i ndi ngs i s over whel mi ng and no

r easonabl e j ur y coul d have di sagr eed wi t h t hem") . Harakal y does

not ser i ousl y cont est t he f i ndi ng t hat he was r esponsi bl e f or mor e

t han f i f t y grams of met hamphet ami ne; 6 hi s argument i s pr i mar i l y

6 To t he ext ent t hat he makes t hi s argument at al l , i t i s onl yi n hi s r epl y br i ef and l ar gel y consi st s of chal l enges t o t headmi ssi bi l i t y of Levi ne' s out - of - cour t st at ement s and t o Ramsden' s

-13-


14/23

di r ect ed t o t he pr ocedur e by whi ch i t was made. But t he l at t er

ar gument est abl i shes onl y t hat t her e was Al l eyne er r or ; i t says

nothi ng about whet her t hat er r or was harml ess.

The evi dence t hat Har akal y was r esponsi bl e f or mor e t han

f i f t y grams of met hamphet ami ne was over whel mi ng. The del i ver y t hat

t he pol i ce i nt er cept ed, t aken al one, was near l y f our t i mes t he

t r i gger i ng amount . Levi ne t ol d pol i ce t hat he had r ecei ved t he

met hamphet ami ne f r omHarakal y t o del i ver t o Ramsden, as he had done

ar ound t en t i mes bef or e, est i mat i ng t he t ot al quant i t y to be

appr oxi mat el y 1, 400 gr ams. Whi l e expr essl y not concedi ng t otal

dr ug quant i t y, Har akal y di d acknowl edge the accur acy of t hi s

account dur i ng t he change- of - pl ea hear i ng. Leavi ng asi de Levi ne' s

st at ement s r egar di ng t he t en ot her del i ver i es, si mpl y by admi t t i ng

t hat he had pr ovi ded t he si ngl e shi pment of dr ugs t hat pol i ce f ound

i n Levi ne' s vehi cl e, Har akal y has acknowl edged r esponsi bi l i t y f or

a quant i t y of dr ugs that f ar exceeds the t r i gger i ng amount . I n

addi t i on, Ramsden t est i f i ed under oat h t hat Levi ne had made about

t en del i ver i es of appr oxi mat el y f i ve ounces ( 141. 7 gr ams) each on

Har akal y' s behal f . He al so t est i f i ed t hat Har akal y used ot her

cr edi bi l i t y. Whi l e t hese chal l enges may cal l i nt o quest i on t hedet er mi nat i on that t he wei ght exceeded f i ve ki l ogr ams, t hey do

l i t t l e t o di sl odge t he over whel mi ng evi dence t hat he wasr esponsi bl e f or some amount of methamphetami ne i n excess of f i f t ygrams. He al so argues t hat t he gover nment may not r el y oni nf ormat i on he gave and admi ssi ons he made dur i ng hi s saf et y- val vepr of f er because he was gr ant ed i mmuni t y unl ess he wer e t o test i f y.Because t hat i nf or mat i on i s unnecessar y t o a det er mi nat i on of t hei ssues her ei n, i t has been omi t t ed f r om t hi s opi ni on.

-14-


15/23

cour i er s, besi des Levi ne, t o del i ver shi pment s of met hamphet ami ne

t o hi m. Ramsden st at ed t hat at l east f or t y- t hr ee or " al most al l "

of f or t y- f our FedEx recei pt s present ed by the gover nment wer e f or

shi pment s of $10, 000 t o Harakal y, each ( asi de f r om some smal l er

" t est " shi pment s at t he out set of t hei r ar r angement ) r epr esent i ng

payment f or approxi mat el y f i ve ounces of met hamphet ami ne. Any one

of t hese shi pment s f ar exceeds t he t r i gger i ng quant i t y. 7 Had t hi s

evi dence been pr esent ed, no r easonabl e j ur y coul d have f ound t hat

Harakal y was r esponsi bl e f or under f i f t y gr ams of methamphetami ne.

See Mor gan, 384 F. 3d at 8.

Har akal y' s addi t i onal st at ement s and admi ssi ons but t r ess

t hi s concl usi on. He l odged many obj ect i ons t o t he PSR' s

dr ug- quant i t y cal cul at i on, but even af t er account i ng f or al l of hi s

r equest ed adj ust ment s, he st at ed that he was r esponsi bl e f or 1, 500

t o 5, 000 grams. 8 Dur i ng t he f i r st sent enci ng hear i ng, he conceded

7 We recogni ze t hat , wher e t here has been Al l eyne or Appr endier r or and t he r el evant f act - f i ndi ng was based sol el y upon co-conspi r at or t est i mony, t he er r or may not be har ml ess. But , i nUni t ed St at es v. Sot o- Ben quez, we al so rej ect ed the cont ent i ont hat such an er r or coul d never be harml ess, at l east wher e t hatt est i mony was gi ven t o ( and apparent l y bel i eved by) a j ur y t hatvot ed t o convi ct t he def endant of par t i ci pat i on i n t he conspi r acy.356 F. 3d 1, 47 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . Thus, we wi l l consi der t he co-conspi r at or t est i mony as but one f act or i n our anal ysi s, gi vi ng i tnei t her di sposi t i ve wei ght nor no wei ght at al l . We not e, however ,

t hat , i n l i ght of t he st r engt h of t he ot her evi dence i n t hi s case,we woul d r each t he same r esul t even wi t hout Ramsden' s t est i mony.

8 For exampl e, Harakal y admi t t ed maki ng the f ol l owi ngshi pment s of met hamphet ami ne t o Ramsden: f i ve or mor e t wo- ounceshi pment s, f i ve or mor e t hr ee- ounce shi pment s, at l east f i ve f our -ounce shi pment s, and an unspeci f i ed number of f i ve- ounce shi pment s.

-15-


16/23

r esponsi bi l i t y f or t he quant i t y of dr ugs t hat cor r esponds t o a base

of f ense l evel of 34, whi ch i s al so 1, 500 t o 5, 000 gr ams. Thi s

cour t has hel d t hat t her e i s no Appr endi vi ol at i on wher e t he f act

t r i gger i ng an i ncr eased maxi mum sent ence was "anchored i n t he

appel l ant ' s own admi ssi on. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ei r by ( Ei r by I I ) , 515

F. 3d 31, 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . I n Ei r by I I , t he def endant st i pul at ed

t o a t r i gger i ng quant i t y bef ore t he sent ence was i mposed. Not i ng

t hat " [ f ] act f i ndi ng pr emi sed on a def endant ' s admi ssi ons i s not a

pr act i ce i nval i dat ed by Appr endi , " i d. , t he cour t hel d t hat t her e

was no er r or . Her e, t he gover nment concedes er r or , so t he cour t

need not det ermi ne whet her Harakal y' s concessi ons - - when not made

as par t of hi s gui l t y pl ea and when not i n t he f or m of a f or mal

st i pul at i on - - ar e suf f i ci ent t o shi el d t he sent ence f r om

har ml ess- er r or r evi ew al t oget her . But t hese concessi ons, at a

mi ni mum, r ei nf orce t he det er mi nat i on t hat any er r or was harml ess. 9

Harakal y cont ends on appeal t hat hi s concessi ons wer e

made agai nst t he backdr op of a pr eponderance- of - t he- evi dence

st andar d and t hat he never conceded t hat t he gover nment coul d prove

any of t hese quant i t i es beyond a r easonabl e doubt . Thi s cl ai m i s

unper suasi ve f or sever al r easons. Fi r st , i t i s bel i ed by t he

A si ngl e t wo- ounce shi pment i s equi val ent t o near l y 56. 7 gr ams,t hus, by i t sel f , t r i gger i ng t he t en- year mandat or y mi ni mum.

9 We need not deci de whet her t hese concessi ons woul di ndependent l y suf f i ce t o est abl i sh har ml essness; we rel y on themher e onl y t o t he ext ent t hat t hey cor r obor at e Har akal y' s ear l i erconcessi ons at hi s Rul e 11 hear i ng.

-16-


17/23

r ecor d. At t he change- of - pl ea hear i ng, t he gover nment i ndi cat ed

t hat i t s r eci t at i on woul d summar i ze what " [ t ] he gover nment , wer e i t

t o pr oceed to t r i al , woul d pr ove beyond a reasonabl e doubt wi t h

compet ent evi dence. " Al t hough t hi s pr ef ace coul d be const r ued t o

have appl i ed onl y t o the r emai nder of t hat sent ence ( t hat t he

government conduct ed an i nvest i gat i on i nt o Ramsden' s dr ug

di st r i but i on) , t he f ar mor e r easonabl e const r uct i on i s t hat t he

r easonabl e- doubt st andar d appl i ed t o t he gover nment ' s ent i r e

r eci t at i on. At t he concl usi on of t hi s r eci t at i on, Har akal y st at ed

t hat , asi de f r om t he asser t i on t hat he was Ramsden' s sol e

methamphet ami ne suppl i er , he agr eed wi t h " i n essence, everyt hi ng

[ t he assi st ant U. S. at t or ney] sai d. " Thi s st at ement was

unqual i f i ed; Har akal y di d not i ndi cat e t hat he was appl yi ng a

di f f er ent evi dent i ary st andard t han t he one t he gover nment

i ndi cat ed at t he out set . Nor di d he make any such qual i f i cat i on at

any other t i me. Second, even i f Harakal y bel i eved t hat he was

concedi ng onl y t hat t he gover nment ' s evi dence sat i sf i ed t he

pr eponder ance- of - t he- evi dence st andar d, as det ai l ed above, t he

evi dence i n t hi s case goes f ar beyond hi s own admi ssi ons. I n

addi t i on, t he r ecord woul d l i kel y have been yet more r obust had

Har akal y not , as soon as t he di st r i ct cour t suggest ed hol di ng an

evi dent i ar y hear i ng on dr ug quant i t y, conceded r esponsi bi l i t y f or

an amount corr espondi ng t o a base of f ense l evel of 34. Of note, he

made thi s concessi on wi t h f ul l knowl edge that he woul d be exposed

-17-


18/23

t o a t en- year mandat ory mi ni mum unl ess he were deemed el i gi bl e f or

saf et y- val ve r el i ef . I n sum, we can f i nd no suppor t i n t he r ecor d

f or Har akal y' s cl ai m t hat he di d not concede t hat t he gover nment

coul d pr ove beyond a r easonabl e doubt a suf f i ci ent quant i t y to

t r i gger t he t en- year mandatory mi ni mum sent ence. Moreover , t he

admi ssi ons i n hi s obj ect i ons t o t he PSR and dur i ng t he sent enci ng

hear i ng account f or onl y a por t i on of t he dr ug- quant i t y evi dence.

Thus, we do not f i nd hi s cl ai m persuasi ve.

Because t he evi dence of t he t r i gger i ng dr ug quant i t y was

overwhel mi ng, we hol d that t he Al l eyne er r or was harml ess beyond a

r easonabl e doubt .

4. Role Enhancement

Har akal y ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed Al l eyne

er r or by maki ng a j udi ci al f i ndi ng, by a pr eponder ance of t he

evi dence, t hat he occupi ed a manager i al r ol e i n t he conspi r acy, and

t hus was not el i gi bl e f or saf et y- val ve r el i ef f r om t he mandat or y

mi ni mum sent ence.

Al l eyne, by i t s t er ms, appl i es t o f act s t hat "i ncrease[ ]

t he mandat ory mi ni mum. " 133 S. Ct . at 2155. Harakal y suggest s

t hat Al l eyne appl i es mor e br oadl y to any f act t hat "mandat e[ s] a

gr eater puni shment t han a cour t woul d other wi se have had di scr et i on

t o i mpose. " We do not r ead Al l eyne so expansi vel y. A f act t hat

pr ecl udes saf et y- val ve r el i ef does not t r i gger or i ncrease t he

mandatory mi ni mum, but i nst ead pr ohi bi t s i mposi t i on of a sent ence

-18-


19/23

bel ow a mandat ory mi ni mumal r eady i mposed as a r esul t of t he gui l t y

pl ea or j ur y ver di ct . See Uni t ed St at es v. Mor r i set t e, 429 F. 3d

318, 32425 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( "Bl akel y, and by extensi on Booker ,

expr essl y r el at e onl y t o t he const i t ut i onal i t y of j udi ci al

f act f i ndi ng whi ch r esul t s i n sent enci ng enhancement s, not t o

sent enci ng r educt i ons. ") .

Har akal y' s f or mul at i on st r et ches Al l eyne wel l beyond i t s

actual hol di ng; woul d i nval i date Congr ess' s command t hat " t he cour t

f i nd[ ] at sent enci ng" t he r el evant saf et y- val ve f act or s, see 18

U. S. C. 3553( f ) ; and i nt r oduces pr obl emat i c pr act i cal

consi der at i ons. Bef or e gr ant i ng saf et y- val ve r el i ef , t he

sent enci ng j udge must make f i ve speci f i c f act ual f i ndi ngs. See i d.

3553( f ) ( 1) ( 5) . Under Har akal y' s f or mul at i on, saf et y- val ve

r el i ef coul d not be deni ed at sent enci ng unl ess t he j udge had

pr evi ousl y submi t t ed t o t he j ur y speci al ver di ct quest i ons

cor r espondi ng t o t he saf et y- val ve f act or s, or , i n t he pl ea cont ext ,

t he gui l t y pl ea expr essl y reci t ed t he absence of one or mor e

f act or s. Thi s ar r angement woul d put t he bur den on t he gover nment

t o pr ove t hat t he saf et y val ve i s i nappl i cabl e, but i t has l ong

been hel d t hat " [ t ] he def endant pl ai nl y has t he bur den of pr ovi ng,

by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence, ent i t l ement t o rel i ef under

[ ] 3553( f ) . " Uni t ed St at es v. Mi r anda- Sant i ago, 96 F. 3d 517, 529

-19-


20/23

n. 25 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) . 10 Thi s al l ocat i on of t he bur den makes per f ect

sense; wer e i t other wi se, t he gover nment woul d be requi r ed t o

di spr ove t he saf et y- val ve f act or s bef or e t he def endant ever

expr essed an i nt ent t o seek a sent enci ng r educt i on vi a t he saf et y

val ve. Wher e t he government seeks i mposi t i on of a mandat ory

mi ni mumsent ence, i t i s " per f ect l y abl e t o ' char ge f act s upon whi ch

a mandat ory mi ni mum sent ence i s based i n t he i ndi ct ment and pr ove

t hem t o a j ur y. ' " Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at 2164 ( Sot omayor , J . ,

concur r i ng) ( quot i ng Har r i s, 536 U. S. at 581 ( Thomas, J . ,

10 The Second Ci r cui t has ar t i cul at ed t hi s r ul e ef f ect i vel y:The oper at i on of t he saf et y- val ve pr ovi si ondoes not admi t t o i mposi ng on t he governmentt he bur den t o di sprove a def endant ' sel i gi bi l i t y f or r el i e f f r om amandat or y- mi ni mum sent ence. Once t hegover nment has car r i ed i t s bur den t o pr ovet hose f act s whi ch t r i gger i mposi t i on of amandatory- mi ni mum sent ence, t he saf et y val veoperat es t o i mpose on t he def endant t he bur den

t o pr ove t hat he i s el i gi bl e f or r el i ef f r omt he mandatory- mi ni mum sent ence. The saf et yval ve cer t ai nl y was not i nt ended t o i mpose ont he gover nment f i ve addi t i onal el ement s t hati t must pr ove bef or e t r i gger i ng t he i mposi t i onof a mandat ory- mi ni mum sent ence.

Uni t ed St ates v. J i menez, 451 F. 3d 97, 10203 ( 2d Ci r . 2006)( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Ever y ci r cui t f ol l ows t hi s r ul e. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.Pol k, 715 F. 3d 238, 253 ( 8t h Ci r . 2013) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Henr y,673 F. 3d 285, 29293 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Gal es, 603F. 3d 49, 5253 ( D. C. Ci r . 2010) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mej i a- Pi ment al ,

477 F. 3d 1100, 1104 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ; Uni t ed St ates v. Haynes, 468F. 3d 422, 427 ( 6t h Ci r . 2006) ; Uni t ed St at es v. St ephenson, 452F. 3d 1173, 1179 ( 10t h Ci r . 2006) ; J i menez, 451 F. 3d at 10203;Uni t ed St at es v. McCr i mmon, 443 F. 3d 454, 457 ( 5t h Ci r . 2006) ;Uni t ed St ates v. J ohnson, 375 F. 3d 1300, 1302 ( 11t h Ci r . 2004) ;Uni t ed St at es v. Gal br ai t h, 200 F. 3d 1006, 1016 ( 7t h Ci r . 2000) ;Uni t ed St at es v. Sabi r , 117 F. 3d 750, 754 ( 3d Ci r . 1997) .

-20-


21/23

di ssent i ng) ) . The gover nment , however , i s not " per f ect l y abl e" t o

pr edi ct , at t he t i me of char gi ng, t r i al , or pl ea negot i at i ons, what

f or ms of r el i ef , i f any, t he def endant may seek at sent enci ng. 11

We t hus hol d t hat t he j ur y ver di ct or gui l t y pl ea set s

t he basel i ne sent enci ng r ange based upon t he mi ni mum and maxi mum

sent ences, i f any, aut hor i zed by st at ut e f or t he of f ense of

convi cti on. J udi ci al f act- f i ndi ng t hat pr ecl udes saf et y- val ve

r el i ef i s per mi ssi bl e because i t does not i ncrease t hat basel i ne

mi ni mum sent ence. Ther ef or e, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not commi t

Al l eyne er r or i n maki ng a f i ndi ng, by t he pr eponder ance of t he

evi dence, t hat Har akal y occupi ed a manager i al r ol e i n t he

conspi r acy.

B. Lack of Notice in the Indictment

Harakal y ar gues t hat , where the government r epeat edl y

i ndi cat ed t hat i t was pr oceedi ng under 841( b) ( 1) ( C) by st at i ng

t hat t he maxi mum i ncarcer at i on penal t y he f aced was t went y years,

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i mposi t i on of t he mandat or y mi ni mum sent ence

f ound i n 841( b) ( 1) ( A) "def eat s r at i onal not i ce t o t he accused. "

He st at es t hat hi s Fi f t h Amendment due pr ocess and Si xt h Amendment

r i ght s wer e " i mpl i cat e[ d] " when t he gover nment i nduced hi mt o rel y

on i t s t went y- year r epr esent at i on when t ender i ng hi s gui l t y pl ea,

11 Mor eover , one of t he saf et y- val ve f act or s - - whet her t hedef endant , "not l at er t han t he t i me of t he sent enci ng hear i ng, "made a t r ut hf ul and f ul l pr of f er t o t he gover nment , 3553( f ) ( 5) - -cannot , by i t s t er ms, be known at t he t i me t he j ur y r ender s i t sver di ct or t he def endant t ender s hi s pl ea.

-21-


22/23

and onl y l at er , at sent enci ng, di d "t he swi t ch occur bef or e hi s

eyes. " Thi s cl ai m i s f l at l y cont r adi cted by t he r ecor d and

f orecl osed by our pr ecedent .

Bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t accept ed Har akal y' s pl ea, t he

gover nment di scussed at l engt h i t s i nt ent t o seek a t en- year

mandat or y mi ni mum sent ence and t he per mi ssi bi l i t y, under

t hen- cur r ent Fi r st Ci r cui t case l aw, of j udi c i al f act - f i ndi ng wi t h

r espect t o dr ug quant i t y. The di st r i ct cour t car ef ul l y expl ai ned

t he i nt er act i on of t he sent enci ng gui del i nes and st at ut or y

mandat ory mi ni mum sent ences, par t i cul ar l y wi t h r espect t o dr ug

quant i t y i n conspi r acy cases, and not ed t hat t he i ssue of dr ug

quant i t y " st i l l has t o be wor ked out on an evi dent i ar y basi s . . .

[ because] i t cer t ai nl y does i mpact t he sent ence because of t he

mandat or y mi ni mum. " Har akal y - - who i s, i nci dent al l y, a l awyer - -

subsequent l y conf i r med t hat he underst ood what had been di scussed

and r eaf f i r med hi s i nt ent t o of f er a gui l t y pl ea. Mor eover , af t er

r ai si ng t hi s same cl ai m t o t he di st r i ct cour t , Har akal y was gi ven

t he oppor t uni t y t o move t o wi t hdr aw hi s pl ea as made based upon a

mi st aken pr emi se, and he di d not do so. 12 Agai nst t hi s backdr op,

12 Thi s deci si on al so ar guabl y const i t ut es wai ver . "[ T] hecont our s of t he cl ai m wer e known t o [ Har akal y] and i dent i f i ed t o

t he cour t by hi m pr i or t o sent enci ng, " Uni t ed St at es v. Ei som, 585F. 3d 552, 556 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) , and he consci ousl y and i nt ent i onal l yr el i nqui shed t he cl ai m by not movi ng t o wi t hdr aw hi s pl ea at t hecour t ' s suggest i on, and by i nst ead expr essi ng t he i nt ent t o seekr el i ef f r om t he 841( b) ( 1) ( A) sent ence vi a t he saf et y val ve."Typi cal l y, a wai ved cl ai mi s dead and bur i ed; i t cannot t her eaf t erbe r esur r ect ed on appeal . " I d. Har akal y has pr esent ed no r eason

-22-


23/23

Har akal y' s cl ai m - - t hat hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght s wer e vi ol at ed

when he was i nduced t o pl ead gui l t y based upon a mi sr epr esent at i on

as t o hi s pot ent i al sent ence, and t hen, onl y af t er t he gover nment

had secur ed hi s gui l t y pl ea, di d i t spr i ng t he mandat or y mi ni mumon

hi m - - necessar i l y f ai l s .

I ndeed, t hi s r esul t i s mandat ed by our deci si on i n Uni t ed

St at es v. Ei r by ( Ei r by I ) , 262 F. 3d 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . Ther e, t he

i ndi ct ment char ged the def endant under 841( b) ( 1) ( B) , but t he

di st r i ct cour t subsequent l y f ound hi m r esponsi bl e f or a dr ug

quant i t y suf f i ci ent t o subj ect hi m t o 841( b) ( 1) ( A) ' s t en- year

mandat ory mi ni mum. I d. at 3435. The def endant ar gued t hat t he

cour t ' s use of 841( b) ( 1) ( A) usur ped t he pr er ogat i ves of t he gr and

j ury and depr i ved hi m of not i ce. I d. at 37. We f i r st expl ai ned

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s swi t ch t o 841( b) ( 1) ( A) "di d not

const i t ut e r ever si bl e er r or unl ess i t depr i ved t he appel l ant of

not i ce or ot her wi se mi sl ed hi m t o hi s det r i ment . " I d. at 38. We

f ound nei t her t o be the case, as t he def endant was gi ven an

oppor t uni t y t o wi t hdr aw hi s gui l t y pl ea af t er t he di st r i ct cour t

f ound a hi gher dr ug quant i t y suf f i ci ent t o t r i gger 841( b) ( 1) ( A) .

I d. The same r esul t obt ai ns her e.

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we af f i r mHar akal y' s sent ence.

why hi s cl ai m, i f wai ved, shoul d never t hel ess be r esur r ect ed her e.However , i n l i ght of our di sposi t i on of t he cl ai m, we need notr each t he wai ver i ssue.

-23-

Documents

United States v. Harakaly, 1st Cir. (2013)