United States v. Reyes-Rivera, 1st Cir. (2016)

7/26/2019 United States v. Reyes-Rivera, 1st Cir. (2016)

1/23

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1712

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

DI LEAN REYES- RI VERA,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Ai da M. Del gado- Col n, Chi ef U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Lynch, St ahl , and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

Mi chael R. Hasse, f or appel l ant .Nel son Pr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef ,

Appel l at e Di vi si on, wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t edSt at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J anuar y 29, 2016


2/23

- 2 -

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Di l ean Reyes- Ri ver a was t he

mast er mi nd of a Ponzi scheme, oper at ed l ar gel y i n Puer t o Ri co,

whi ch def r auded over 230 vul nerabl e peopl e out of appr oxi matel y

$22 mi l l i on. I n 2012, he pl ed gui l t y t o bank f r aud and t o

conspi r acy to commi t wi r e f r aud, and i n 2013 he was sentenced t o

concur r ent t erms of 60 mont hs of i mpr i sonment on t he wi r e f r aud

conspi r acy count and 242 mont hs on t he bank f r aud count . He

appeal s, br i ngi ng a number of chal l enges t o hi s 242- mont h sent ence,

basi cal l y sayi ng t he sent ence i s t oo hi gh because hi s was onl y a

"r un- of - t he- mi l l " Ponzi scheme. Fi ndi ng no er r or , we af f i r m.

I .

Because thi s sent enci ng appeal f ol l ows a gui l t y pl ea, we

dr aw t he rel evant f act s f r om t he pl ea agr eement , t he change- of -

pl ea col l oquy, t he pr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r epor t ( "PSR" ) , and

t he t r anscr i pt of t he sent enci ng hear i ng. Uni t ed St at es v. Ki ng,

741 F. 3d 305, 306 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

Reyes- Ri ver a was t he pr esi dent of Gl obal Reach Tr adi ng

( "GRT") , a f or - pr of i t cor por at i on r egi st er ed i n Fl or i da and Puer t o

Ri co t hat oper at ed as a f r ont f or an extensi ve Ponzi scheme. As

pr esi dent , Reyes- Ri ver a had access t o and si gnat or y aut hor i t y on

al l GRT bank account s and busi ness t r ansact i ons. Reyes- Ri ver a' s

younger br ot her , J ef f r ey Reyes- Ri ver a ( "J ef f r ey") , a l i censed

at t or ney i n Puer t o Ri co, was one of t he i ncor por at or s of GRT as

wel l as i t s account ant , and was a co- def endant .


3/23

- 3 -

Between 2001 and 2007, t he Reyes- Ri vera br others, al ong

wi t h pr omoters and sal es agent s who worked f or GRT, sol i ci t ed money

f r om unsuspecti ng i ndi vi dual s, most l y f r om Puer t o Ri co, by

pr omi si ng t o i nvest t he money i n l ow- r i sk, shor t - t er m, hi gh- yi el d

i nvest ment progr ams. I nvest ors wer e guar ant eed a par t i cul ar r at e

of r et ur n, r angi ng between f i ve per cent and t went y per cent .

Nei t her Reyes- Ri ver a, J ef f r ey, nor GRT was r egi st er ed or l i censed

t o of f er or sel l i nvest ment s t o t he gener al publ i c by ei t her t he

U. S. Secur i t i es and Exchange Commi ssi on or t he Of f i ce of t he

Commi ssi oner of Fi nanci al I nst i t ut i ons of Puer t o Ri co.

The money t hey secur ed f r om mi sl ed i nvest or s was not

act ual l y i nvest ed but i nst ead f unded a Ponzi scheme, i n whi ch t hey

used t he money they recei ved f r om l at er i nvest or s t o pay "r et ur ns"

t o ear l i er i nvest or s. The Reyes- Ri ver as t ook about $4. 6 mi l l i on

f r om t he pr oceeds of t he scheme to pur chase or l ease f or t hei r own

benef i t l uxur y vehi cl es, houses, f ur ni t ur e, j ewel r y, and t r i ps.

Dur i ng the cour se of t he scheme, t he Reyes- Ri ver as al so

oper at ed ot her ent i t i es, i ncor por at ed i n Puer t o Ri co, Ant i gua and

Bar buda, and Fl or i da, i n or der t o conduct busi nesses si mi l ar t o

GRT. I n 2005, Reyes- Ri ver a, on behal f of one of t hese ent i t i es,

WR4 Equi t y Corpor at i on, secur ed a mor t gage l oan wi t h Fi r st Bank,

a f eder al l y i nsur ed f i nanci al i nst i t ut i on, f or appr oxi mat el y $1. 7

mi l l i on wi t h t he use of f r audul ent document s, i ncl udi ng per sonal

f i nanci al st at ement s and a GRT f i nanci al st at ement .


4/23

- 4 -

To conceal t he scheme, t he Reyes- Ri ver as pl aced t he

f unds i nvest ed i n GRT i n ei ght een di f f er ent bank account s, hel d i n

t hei r per sonal names and i n t he names of t hei r var i ous ent i t i es,

and wi t h at l east t hr ee di f f er ent banks i n mul t i pl e count r i es.

They al so di d not r ef er t o t he i nvest or s' si gned i nvest ment

cont r act s as i nvol vi ng "secur i t i es. " I nst ead, t hey used var i ous

mi sl eadi ng euphemi sms l i ke "Pr i vat e Pr ogr ams of Commerci al Paper"

and "Speci al Pr i vat e Pl acement Pr ogr ams. " I n addi t i on, t hey

i mposed a st r i ct code of conf i dent i al i t y and non- di scl osur e on

t hei r i nvestor s.

Di l ean Reyes- Ri ver a was the mast ermi nd of t he operat i on.

He admi t t ed af t er hi s ar r est t hat he i nf l uenced J ef f r ey t o assi st

hi m i n per pet r at i ng t he f r aud and t hat J ef f r ey f ol l owed hi s

i nst r uct i ons. He al so st at ed t hat he was t he one who made al l of

t he busi ness deci si ons, t hat J ef f r ey al ways consul t ed hi m bef or e

maki ng a cont r act or br i ngi ng i n a new i nvest or , and t hat he never

act ual l y expl ai ned t he busi ness t o J ef f r ey. 1

When al l was sai d and done, Reyes- Ri ver a had def r auded

mor e t han 230 i nvest or s out of over $22 mi l l i on. Many of t hese

vi ct i ms wer e r et i r ees or pensi oner s. The PSR i ncl udes summar i es

of vi ct i m i mpact st at ement s submi t t ed by roughl y f i f t y of Reyes-

1 At or al argument , Reyes- Ri ver a' s counsel st at ed t hatJ ef f r ey was f ul l y awar e of t he nat ure of t he scheme. But t hi sr epr esent at i on i s i nconsi st ent wi t h a cont r ar y st at ement i n t hePSR, t o whi ch Di l ean di d not obj ect .


5/23

- 5 -

Ri ver a' s vi ct i ms. The vi ct i ms descr i bed how much t hey i nvest ed

and how many l ost t hei r l i f e savi ngs. Many now suf f er physi cal

and emot i onal pr obl ems, such as anxi et y, hi gh bl ood pr essur e,

i nsomni a, depr essi on, and pani c at t acks. One vi ct i m descr i bed

becomi ng i ncapaci t at ed and bei ng hospi t al i zed i n a psychi at r i c

f aci l i t y and pl aced on psychot r opi c medi cat i ons. Anot her became

sui ci dal .

I I .

On Sept ember 25, 2008, t he Reyes- Ri ver as were i ndi ct ed

by a gr and j ur y on count s of conspi r acy t o commi t secur i t i es f r aud,

conspi r acy t o commi t wi r e f r aud, and conspi r acy t o commi t money

l aunder i ng, as wel l as a f or f ei t ur e al l egat i on. Reyes- Ri ver a al one

was al so i ndi ct ed on an addi t i onal count of bank f r aud based on

t he WR4 Equi t y Corporat i on mort gage l oan. Reyes- Ri ver a f l ed and

r emai ned a f ugi t i ve unt i l he was ar r est ed i n Spai n on Sept ember 6,

2009 and ext r adi t ed t o t he Uni t ed St ates on Oct ober 18, 2010.

On November 21, 2012, t he Reyes- Ri ver as ent ered i nt o a

package pl ea deal . Di l ean Reyes- Ri ver a pl ed gui l t y t o conspi r acy

t o commi t wi r e f r aud, whi ch car r i es a st at ut or y maxi mum t er m of

f i ve year s' i mpr i sonment , 18 U. S. C. 371, 1343, and bank f r aud,

whi ch car r i es a st at ut or y maxi mum t er m of t hi r t y year s'

i mpr i sonment , i d. 1344. He al so admi t t ed t he f or f ei t ur e

al l egat i on. I d. 982( a) ( 2) ( A) .


6/23

- 6 -

The pl ea agr eement cal cul at ed Reyes- Ri ver a' s gui del i nes

sent enci ng range t o be 121 to 151 mont hs, based on the f ol l owi ng:

a base of f ense l evel of seven, U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1( a) ( 1) , a cr i mi nal

hi st or y cat egor y of I , a twent y- poi nt enhancement because t he

amount of l oss exceeded $7 mi l l i on, i d. 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( K) , a f our -

poi nt enhancement because more t han f i f t y vi ct i ms were i nvol ved,

i d. 2B1. 1( b) ( 2) ( B) , a t wo- poi nt enhancement because Reyes- Ri ver a

der i ved mor e than $1 mi l l i on i n gr oss r ecei pt s f r om one or mor e

f i nanci al i nst i t ut i ons, i d. 2B1. 1( b) ( 15) ( A) , a t wo- poi nt

enhancement f or hi s l eader shi p r ol e i n t he scheme, i d. 3B1. 1( c) ,

and a t hr ee- poi nt r educt i on f or accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y, i d.

3E1. 1. 2 The gover nment , however , agr eed t o r ecommend a sentence

of bet ween 72 and 136 mont hs of i mpr i sonment . The pl ea agr eement

al so st at ed t hat t he gover nment i nt ended t o seek f ul l r est i t ut i on

i n t he amount of $22 mi l l i on. On November 21, 2012, a magi st r ate

j udge r ecommended t hat t he di st r i ct cour t accept Reyes- Ri ver a' s

gui l t y pl ea. 3

2 Because Reyes- Ri ver a was sentenced on J une 26, 2013, t heNovember 2012 ver si on of t he sent enci ng gui del i nes appl i es. SeeU. S. S. G. 1B1. 11( a) .

3 The PSR was f i l ed on May 22, 2013. I t cal cul ated Reyes-Ri ver a' s gui del i nes sent enci ng range t o be 235 t o 293 mont hs ofi mpr i sonment . Thi s cal cul at i on di f f er ed f r om t he cal cul at i on i nt he pl ea agr eement because i t i mposed 1) a twent y- t wo- poi ntenhancement f or l osses i n excess of $20 mi l l i on, U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( L) ; 2) a two- poi nt enhancement f or use ofsophi st i cat ed means, i d. 2B1. 1( b) ( 10) ( C) ; and 3) a f our - poi ntenhancement f or Reyes- Ri ver a' s l eader shi p r ol e, i d. 3B1. 1( a) .


7/23

- 7 -

Sent enci ng t ook pl ace on J une 26, 2013. 4 Many of t he

vi ct i ms appear ed and t he di st r i ct cour t hear d st at ement s f r omt hose

who wi shed t o speak. The di st r i ct cour t cal cul at ed Reyes- Ri ver a' s

gui del i nes sent enci ng r ange t o be 188 t o 235 mont hs, whi ch i s not

i ndependent l y chal l enged on appeal . The di st r i ct cour t used a

base of f ense l evel of seven and a cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of I .

The cour t t hen i mposed a t went y- poi nt enhancement f or amount of

l oss, a t wo- poi nt enhancement f or Reyes- Ri ver a' s l eader shi p r ol e,

a f our - poi nt enhancement f or t he number of vi ct i ms, a two- poi nt

enhancement f or gr oss r ecei pt s i n excess of $1 mi l l i on, and a

t hr ee- poi nt r educt i on f or accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y, as

r ecommended by t he pl ea agr eement . I t addi t i onal l y i mposed a t wo-

poi nt enhancement f or use of sophi st i cat ed means, as r ecommended

The PSR al so r ecommended r est i t ut i on i n t he amount of $22 mi l l i on,and not ed t hat i f t he cour t wer e t o consi der a var i ance, i t coul df act or i n t he sever e har m caused t o the vi ct i ms of t he scheme andt he f act t hat Reyes- Ri ver a r emai ned a f ugi t i ve bef or e hi s ar r estand ext r adi t i on. Reyes- Ri ver a f i l ed obj ect i ons t o t heenhancement s f or amount of l oss, sophi st i cat ed means, andl eader shi p r ol e; t he $22 mi l l i on r est i t ut i on r ecommendat i on; andt he st at ement of f act or s t hat mi ght suppor t a var i ance.

4 Bef or e sent enci ng, Reyes- Ri ver a f i l ed a sent enci ng

memor andum r ai si ng t he i ssue of sent enci ng di spar i t y, r ef er enci ngt hr ee cases - - t wo f r omwi t hi n t he Di st r i ct of Puer t o Ri co and onef r om t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k - - t hat he al l eged wer esubst ant i al l y si mi l ar t o hi s case and r esul t ed i n sent ences si mi l art o t he l ower end of what was r ecommended i n t he pl ea agreement .Hi s sent enci ng memor andumal so ur ged t he di st r i ct cour t t o consi derhi s ef f or t s t o assi st t he gover nment i n i nvest i gat i ng t he schemeand hi s " f rui t f ul ef f or t s to rehabi l i t at e. "


8/23

- 8 -

by t he PSR. The cour t al so, sua spont e, i mposed a t wo- poi nt

enhancement f or abuse of a posi t i on of t r ust . I d. 3B1. 3.

Af t er cal cul at i ng t he gui del i nes r ange and expl ai ni ng

i t s consi der at i on of t he 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) f act or s, t he cour t

sent enced Reyes- Ri ver a t o concurr ent t erms of i mpr i sonment of 60

mont hs on t he wi r e f r aud conspi r acy count and 242 mont hs on t he

bank f r aud count . I n choosi ng t o i mpose a seven- mont h upward

var i ance, t he di st r i ct cour t pl aced par t i cul ar emphasi s on t he

"pai n and suf f er i ng" t hat Reyes- Ri ver a caused hi s vi ct i ms,

r ecount i ng i n det ai l t he physi cal , emot i onal , and f i nanci al har m

i nf l i ct ed upon t hem. Rest i t ut i on was al so or der ed i n t he amount

of $10, 629, 021. 01. Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

J ef f r ey, who was not i ndi ct ed on t he bank f r aud count

and so onl y pl ed gui l t y t o t he wi r e f r aud conspi r acy count , was

sent enced t o 48 mont hs of i mpr i sonment by t he same j udge. 5

I I I .

We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s i mposi t i on of a sent ence

f or abuse of di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Cl ogst on, 662 F. 3d 588,

590 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Our anal ysi s i s t wo- f ol d: "we f i r st det er mi ne

5 The j udgment ent ered on J une 12, 2014 i n J ef f r ey Reyes-Ri ver a' s case st ates t hat he was sent enced t o 48 mont hs ofi mpr i sonment . However , Di l ean Reyes- Ri ver a, i n hi s br i ef bef or et hi s cour t , r epr esent s t hat J ef f r ey was sent enced t o 58 mont hs.Ci t i ng Reyes- Ri ver a' s br i ef , t he gover nment al so pl aces J ef f r ey' ssent ence at 58 mont hs. I n any event , whether J ef f r ey was sent encedt o 48 or 58 mont hs does not i mpact our r esol ut i on of t he case.


9/23

- 9 -

whether t he sent ence i mposed i s pr ocedur al l y r easonabl e and then

det er mi ne whet her i t i s subst ant i vel y r easonabl e. " I d.

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nt er pr et at i on of t he

gui del i nes de novo and i t s f act f i ndi ng f or cl ear er r or . Uni t ed

St at es v. O' Connel l , 252 F. 3d 524, 52829 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . When

t he def endant f ai l s t o r ai se a pr ocedur al obj ect i on at sent enci ng,

however , we r evi ew onl y f or pl ai n er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Mi l l n-

I saac, 749 F. 3d 57, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . To show pl ai n er r or , a

def endant must est abl i sh: " ( 1) t hat an er r or occur r ed ( 2) whi ch

was cl ear or obvi ous and whi ch not onl y (3) af f ect ed t he

def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s, but al so ( 4) ser i ousl y i mpai r ed

t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on of j udi ci al

pr oceedi ngs. " Uni t ed St at es v. Duar t e, 246 F. 3d 56, 60 ( 1st Ci r .

2001) . 6

A. Procedur al Reasonabl eness

A sent ence i s pr ocedur al l y r easonabl e i f "t he di st r i ct

cour t commi t t ed no si gni f i cant pr ocedur al er r or , such as f ai l i ng

t o cal cul at e ( or i mpr oper l y cal cul at i ng) t he Gui del i nes r ange,

t r eat i ng t he Gui del i nes as mandat or y, f ai l i ng t o consi der t he

3553( a) f act or s, sel ect i ng a sent ence based on cl ear l y er r oneous

f act s, or f ai l i ng t o adequat el y expl ai n t he chosen sent ence - -

6 The par t i es ar e cor r ect t hat t he wai ver of appealpr ovi si on i n Reyes- Ri ver a' s pl ea agr eement does not bar t he i nst antappeal because t he sent enci ng j udge di d not sent ence Reyes- Ri ver ai n accor dance wi t h t he pl ea agr eement ' s r ecommended sent ence.


10/23

- 10 -

i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on f or any devi at i on f r om t he Gui del i nes

r ange. " Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d 87, 92 ( 1st Ci r . 2008)

( quot i ng Gal l v. Uni t ed St at es, 552 U. S. 38, 51 ( 2007) ) . Reyes-

Ri ver a l aunches sever al at t acks on t he pr ocedur al r easonabl eness

of hi s sent ence, onl y some of whi ch ar e pr eser ved, and al l of whi ch

we r ej ect .

1. Abuse of Posi t i on of Trust Enhancement

Reyes- Ri ver a ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

i mposi ng an enhancement f or abuse of a posi t i on of t r ust , sayi ng

he does not meet t he qual i f i cat i ons. U. S. S. G. 3B1. 3 pr ovi des

f or a t wo- poi nt enhancement " [ i ] f t he def endant abused a posi t i on

of publ i c or pr i vat e t r ust . . . i n a manner t hat si gni f i cant l y

f aci l i t at ed t he commi ssi on or conceal ment of t he of f ense. " For

t he enhancement t o appl y, " t he di st r i ct cour t must f i r st deci de

t hat t he def endant occupi ed a posi t i on of t r ust and t hen f i nd t hat

he used t hat posi t i on t o f aci l i t at e or conceal t he of f ense. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Gi l l , 99 F. 3d 484, 489 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) .

Appl i cat i on not e 1 t o 3B1. 3 st at es t hat a posi t i on of

publ i c or pr i vat e t r ust i s one "char act er i zed by pr of essi onal or

manager i al di scr et i on" and t hat " [ p] er sons hol di ng such posi t i ons

or di nar i l y ar e subj ect t o si gni f i cant l y l ess super vi si on t han

empl oyees whose responsi bi l i t i es are pr i mar i l y non- di scr et i onar y

i n nat ur e. " U. S. S. G. 3B1. 3 cmt . n. 1; see Uni t ed St at es v.

Chant haseng, 274 F. 3d 586, 589 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) .


11/23

- 11 -

Appl i cat i on not e 3 cl ar i f i es t hat t he enhancement

appl i es equal l y t o t hose hol di ng a "sham posi t i on of t r ust . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Haber , 251 F. 3d 881, 891 ( 10t h Ci r . 2001) .

Thi s adj ust ment al so appl i es i n a case i nwhi ch t he def endant pr ovi des suf f i ci enti ndi ci a t o t he vi cti m t hat t he def endantl egi t i mat el y hol ds a posi t i on of pr i vat e orpubl i c t r ust when, i n f act , t he def endant doesnot . For exampl e, t he adj ust ment appl i es i nt he case of a def endant who (A) perpet r ates af i nanci al f r aud by l eadi ng an i nvest or t obel i eve t he def endant i s a l egi t i mat ei nvest ment br oker ; or ( B) per pet r at es a f r audby repr esent i ng f al sel y to a pat i ent or

empl oyer t hat t he def endant i s a l i censedphysi ci an. I n maki ng t he mi sr epr esent at i on,t he def endant assumes a posi t i on of t r ust ,r el at i ve t o t he vi ct i m, t hat pr ovi des t hedef endant wi t h t he same oppor t uni t y t o commi ta di f f i cul t - t o- det ect cr i me t hat t he def endantwoul d have had i f t he posi t i on wer e hel dl egi t i mat el y.

U. S. S. G. 3B1. 3 cmt . n. 3; see Uni t ed St at es v. Gher t l er , 605 F. 3d

1256, 126566 ( 11t h Ci r . 2010) ( expl ai ni ng t he hi st or y and pur pose

of appl i cat i on not e 3) .

Reyes- Ri ver a asser t s t hat he di d not possess any

pr of essi onal or manager i al di scr et i on because he was j ust an

" i nvest ment l ender , or sal esman, " whi ch "di d not i n any way gi ve

hi m any speci al abi l i t y t o commi t a di f f i cul t - t o- det ect wr ong. "

He ar gues t hat al l f r aud schemes r equi r e some l evel of t r ust

bet ween t he f r audst er and t he vi ct i m, and so "t he mer e f act t hat

t he vi ct i m- i nvest or s i n t hi s case may have t r ust ed . . . Reyes-

Ri ver a i s not suf f i ci ent t o j ust i f y t he appl i cat i on of t hi s


12/23

- 12 -

i ncr ease. " See Uni t ed St at es v. Hi r sch, 239 F. 3d 221, 227 ( 2d

Ci r . 2001) .

He under st at es hi s r ol e, and t he di st r i ct cour t

commi t t ed no er r or . Reyes- Ri ver a " i n f act exer ci sed consi der abl e

aut hor i t y and di scr et i on" at GRT. Uni t ed St at es v. Si cher , 576

F. 3d 64, 72 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . He was not a si mpl e sal esman; he was

t he pr esi dent of , what appear ed t o be, a l egi t i mat e i nvest ment

company. He r etai ned access t o and si gnatory aut hor i t y on al l GRT

bank account s and busi ness t r ansact i ons. 7

As t o t he quest i on whet her he "used [ hi s] posi t i on t o

f aci l i t at e or conceal t he of f ense, " i d. at 71 ( quot i ng Gi l l , 99

F. 3d at 489) , i t i s cl ose t o sel f - evi dent t hat Reyes- Ri ver a was

abl e t o operate and conceal hi s scheme i n l arge part because he

hel d hi msel f out as t he pr esi dent of a pur por t edl y l egi t i mat e

i nvest ment company. The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Reyes- Ri ver a

used hi s posi t i on t o "seek[ ] per sons t o t r ust i n hi s abi l i t y t o do

i nvest ment s and t o recei ve t he moni es t o be pl aced under hi s

t r ust . . . i n pr omi se of a hi gh yi el d r et ur n. " The cour t f ur t her

char act er i zed Reyes- Ri ver a as havi ng " i nvi t e[ d] [ t he vi ct i ms] as

pr esi dent of a cor por at i on t hat was doi ng t hi s t ype of i nvest ment

7 As f or hi s act ual aut hor i t y, Reyes- Ri ver a conceded t hatJ ef f r ey f ol l owed al l of hi s i nst r uct i ons, t hat Reyes- Ri ver a wast he one who made al l t he busi ness deci si ons, and t hat J ef f r eyal ways consul t ed hi m bef or e maki ng a cont r act or br i ngi ng i n a newi nvest or . I n f act , he admi t t ed t hat he never even expl ai ned t hebusi ness t o J ef f r ey.


13/23

- 13 -

when [ he was] l yi ng t o t hem i n t er ms of [ hi s] abi l i t i es, [ hi s]

pot ent i al or t he i nvest ment s. "

Reyes- Ri ver a had al so pr evi ousl y hel d a val i d l i cense t o

sel l secur i t i es f or a pr i or empl oyer . As t he di st r i ct cour t f ound,

"hi s t r ai ni ng i n secur i t i es, t he exper i ence he had gai ned al l owed

hi m t o st ep i n, make al l of t hese r epr esent at i ons concer ni ng t hi s

huge, magni f i cent i nvest ment he was of f er i ng out t her e. " Thi s

f i t s neat l y i nt o appl i cat i on not e 3.

Sever al of hi s vi ct i ms st at ed t hat he i n f act bet r ayed

t hei r t r ust . And Reyes- Ri ver a r ecogni zed at sent enci ng t hat " t hey

t r ust ed i n me. " See i d. at 73 ( Whi l e " t est i mony by i ndi vi dual s

t hat t hey t r ust ed someone who bet r ayed t hei r t r ust does not i t sel f

est abl i sh t hat t he posi t i on was a posi t i on of t r ust [ , t ] he

t est i mony . . . i s not i r r el evant . ") .

The enhancement was cor r ect l y appl i ed.

2. Sophi st i cat ed Means Enhancement

Reyes- Ri ver a ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

i mposi ng a t wo- poi nt enhancement f or hi s use of "sophi st i cat ed

means" i n oper at i ng t he scheme. U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1( b) ( 10) ( C) .

Appl i cat i on not e 8( B) pr ovi des: " [ c] onduct such as hi di ng asset s

or t r ansacti ons, or bot h, t hr ough t he use of f i cti t i ous ent i t i es,

cor por at e shel l s, or of f shor e f i nanci al account s . . . or di nar i l y

i ndi cat es sophi st i cat ed means. " I d. 2B1. 1 cmt . n. 8( B) . The

di st r i ct cour t f ound, i n accor dance wi t h appl i cat i on not e 8( B) ,


14/23

- 14 -

t hat Reyes- Ri ver a oper at ed sever al di f f er ent cor por at e ent i t i es

wi t h bank account s at var i ous i nst i t ut i ons i n sever al count r i es

" i n or der t o conceal t he i l l egal nat ur e and sour ce of f unds [ t he

Reyes- Ri ver as] had r ecei ved f r om GRT. " Reyes- Ri ver a appear s to

have accept ed t hi s f i ndi ng on appeal , concedi ng t hat " t hi s

enhancement was par t of hi s st i pul at ed conduct . " Ei t her way, t her e

was no er r or i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng.

Hi s argument on appeal i nst ead ur ges t hi s cour t t o "appl y

a r el at i ve scal e i n maki ng f i ndi ngs as t o sophi st i cat i on, " cl ai mi ng

t hat r el at i ve t o ot her Ponzi schemes, hi s was j ust "r un- of - t he-

mi l l . " He candi dl y admi t s t hat he has "no j udi ci al , st at ut or y, or

r egul at or y suppor t " f or hi s t heor y. On t hi s admi ssi on, we agr ee.

Ther e i s no er r or .

3. Over l appi ng Enhancement s

Reyes- Ri ver a makes t wo rel ated argument s t o t he ef f ect

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by i mposi ng a ser i es of enhancement s

t hat ar e "subst ant i vel y over l appi ng. " Bot h of t hese ar gument s ar e

r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal , and so t he gover nment ar gues

t hey ar e wai ved. 8 See Uni t ed St at es v. Tor r es- Landr a, 783 F. 3d

8 Si mpl y t o say t hat Reyes- Ri ver a di d not rai se t he i ssuei n t he t r i al cour t i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh wai ver . See Uni t edSt at es v. Wal ker , 538 F. 3d 21, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . The ar gument smay wel l be wai ved, t hough. Reyes- Ri ver a not onl y f ai l ed t o obj ectt o t he ser i es of enhancement s, but he al so af f i r mat i vel y agr eed i nhi s pl ea agr eement t o f our of t he si x enhancement s account i ng f ort went y- ei ght of t he thi r t y- t wo enhancement poi nt s he r ecei ved.See Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Or t a, 500 F. App' x 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)


15/23

- 15 -

58, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Fal u- Gonzal ez, 205 F. 3d

436, 440 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .

The ar gument s, whet her wai ved or not , st i l l f ai l pl ai n

er r or r evi ew. Reyes- Ri ver a' s f i r st ar gument i s t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t engaged i n i mper mi ssi bl e "doubl e count i ng. " He i s wr ong.

" [ W] hen ' nei t her an expl i ci t pr ohi bi t i on agai nst doubl e count i ng

nor a compel l i ng basi s f or i mpl yi ng such a pr ohi bi t i on exi st s,

cl ear l y i ndi cat ed adj ust ment s f or ser i ousness of t he of f ense and

f or of f ender conduct can bot h be i mposed, not wi t hst andi ng t hat t he

adj ust ment s der i ve i n some measur e f r om a common nucl eus of

oper at i ve f act s. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. McCar t y, 475 F. 3d 39, 46 ( 1st

Ci r . 2007) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Li l l y, 13 F. 3d 15, 20 ( 1st

Ci r . 1994) ) ; see Uni t ed St at es v. Fi ume, 708 F. 3d 59, 62 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) ( "Gi ven t he Commi ssi on' s pr ocl i vi t y f or i ndi cat i ng when

doubl e count i ng i s f or bi dden, we ar e r el uct ant t o i nf er f ur t her

such i nst ances out of t hi n ai r . ") .

Reyes- Ri ver a does not poi nt t o any expl i ci t pr ohi bi t i on

agai nst appl yi ng t hese enhancement s as doubl e count i ng and of f ers

( "A def endant cannot agr ee t o both an enhancement and i t s f actualpr edi cat e, r ei t er at e t hat agr eement i n open cour t , and l at err epudi at e i t mer el y t o sui t hi s l at er conveni ence. ") ; Uni t ed St at esv. Ser r ano- Beauvai x, 400 F. 3d 50, 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . "Theseact i ons r i ng not of ' over si ght , i nadver t ence, or negl ect i nasser t i ng a pot ent i al r i ght , ' but r at her of a del i ber at e cour se ofconduct . " Uni t ed St at es v. Gaf f ney- Kessel l , 772 F. 3d 97, 100 ( 1stCi r . 2014) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ei som, 585 F. 3d 552, 556 ( 1stCi r . 2009) ) .


16/23

- 16 -

no compel l i ng expl anat i on f or i nf er r i ng a pr ohi bi t i on. Sent enci ng

enhancement s ser ve di f f er ent pur poses, see Li l l y, 13 F. 3d at 18

19, and we see no pl ai n er r or i n t he cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat

each of t hese enhancement s appl i ed. 9

Reyes- Ri ver a' s second ar gument i s t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t err ed by not gr ant i ng a "downward depart ur e"10 i n l i ght of

t he al l egedl y over l appi ng enhancement s, ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

J ackson, 346 F. 3d 22, 26 ( 2d Ci r . 2003) . We wi l l t r eat t hi s i ssue

under t he t opi c of subst ant i ve r easonabl eness bel ow.

4. Cooperat i on wi t h t he Government

Reyes- Ri ver a next ar gues t hat " t he sent enci ng cour t

shoul d have consi der ed and r educed [ hi s] of f ense l evel or at l east

have i mposed t he agr eed upon sentence because of [ hi s] compl ete

and candi d cooperat i on [ wi t h t he government ] , i n accor dance wi t h

9 At one poi nt i n hi s br i ef , Reyes- Ri ver a t akes ai mat t heamount of l oss enhancement . He ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour tmi scal cul at ed t he amount of l oss, poi nt i ng t o a debat e atsent enci ng about t he pr oper r est i t ut i on amount . He of f er s$8, 154, 700 as t he appr opr i at e f i gur e. But t he t went y- poi ntenhancement he r ecei ved under U. S. S. G. 2B1. 1( b) ( 1) ( K) appl i es t oan amount of l oss i n excess of $7 mi l l i on. So t he enhancementpl ai nl y appl i es.

10 I t i s not cl ear f r omhi s br i ef i f Reyes- Ri ver a i s ar gui ngt hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have gr ant ed a downwar d depar t ur eor a downward var i ance. These t erms have di f f erent meani ngs. SeeUni t ed St at es v. Vega- Sant i ago, 519 F. 3d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( enbanc) . Ei t her way, we r ej ect hi s cl ai m.


17/23

- 17 -

U. S. S. G. 5K1. 1. " 11 Though t he par t i es acknowl edged Reyes-

Ri ver a' s assi st ance i n t he pl ea agr eement , 5K1. 1 i s i nappl i cabl e.

That provi si on st at es: "Upon mot i on of t he gover nment st at i ng t hat

t he def endant has pr ovi ded subst ant i al assi st ance i n t he

i nvest i gat i on or pr osecut i on of anot her per son who has commi t t ed

an of f ense, t he cour t may depar t f r om t he gui del i nes. " U. S. S. G.

5K1. 1. Reyes- Ri ver a does not i dent i f y any mot i on f r om t he

gover nment st at i ng t hat he pr ovi ded subst ant i al assi st ance.

Nei t her i s t her e a ment i on of one i n t he sent enci ng t r anscr i pt or

i n hi s sent enci ng memorandum. And on appeal , he r ai ses no

chal l enge t o t he gover nment ' s deci si on not t o f i l e such a mot i on.

See Uni t ed St at es v. Mul er o- Al gar n, 535 F. 3d 34, 3839 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) .

He may be ar gui ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have

consi der ed, on t he recor d, hi s assi st ance to the gover nment and

accor di ngl y gi ven hi m a l ower sent ence. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Pacheco, 727 F. 3d 41, 47 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( r ecogni zi ng gover nment

cooper at i on as sect i on 3553( a) f act or ) . Thi s amount s t o an

ar gument t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not pr oper l y consi der t he

11 The government makes no at t empt t o r espond t o t hi sar gument i n i t s br i ef . Thi s, al ong wi t h t he gover nment ' s t wo-sent ence, per f unct or y response t o Reyes- Ri ver a' s abuse of t r ustargument , compel s us t o r epeat t he warni ng i ssued i n Uni t ed St atesv. Vi l l anueva Lor enzo, 802 F. 3d 182, 187 n. 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) : "Thegover nment r i sks l osi ng a case i t shoul d not l ose . . . wi t h t hatki nd of advocacy. "


18/23

- 18 -

sect i on 3553( a) f act or s. We r ej ect t he ar gument . The di st r i ct

cour t s t at ed t hat i t consi der ed t he sect i on 3553( a) f act or s. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Mader a- Or t i z, 637 F. 3d 26, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2011)

( "[ T] he f act t hat t he cour t st at ed t hat i t had consi der ed al l t he

sect i on 3553( a) f act or s i s ent i t l ed t o some wei ght . " ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Dvi l a- Gonzl ez, 595 F. 3d 42, 49 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) ) ) . And af t er car ef ul l y r evi ewi ng t he sent enci ng t r anscr i pt ,

we ar e conf i dent t hat t he di st r i ct cour t gave suf f i ci ent

consi der at i on t o t he sect i on 3553( a) f act or s, and i t di d not er r

by not expr essl y st at i ng on t he r ecor d i t s consi der at i on of Reyes-

Ri ver a' s assi st ance t o t he gover nment . A di st r i ct cour t need not

ver bal i ze i t s eval uat i on of each and ever y sect i on 3553( a) f act or .

See Dvi l a- Gonzl ez, 595 F. 3d at 49; Uni t ed St at es v. Qui ones-

Medi na, 553 F. 3d 19, 2627 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

"Mer el y r ai si ng pot ent i al l y mi t i gat i ng f act or s does not

guar ant ee a l esser sent ence, " Dvi l a- Gonzl ez, 595 F. 3d at 49, and

"havi ng di scr et i on t o consi der somet hi ng does not ent i t l e a

def endant t o f or ce t he di st r i ct cour t t o f act or t he i ssue bei ng

consi der ed i nt o i t s f i nal deci si on, " Pacheco, 727 F. 3d at 48.

B. Subst ant i ve Reasonabl eness

The subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of a sent ence i s

r evi ewed, consi der i ng t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances, f or abuse

of di scr et i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Rui z- Huer t as, 792 F. 3d 223, 226

( 1st Ci r . 2015) . A sent ence wi l l st and so l ong as ther e i s "a


19/23

- 19 -

pl ausi bl e sent enci ng r at i onal e and a def ensi bl e r esul t . " Mar t i n,

520 F. 3d at 96. The di st r i ct cour t had pl ent y of r eason t o sent ence

as i t di d.

1. Di spr opor t i onal i t y

Reyes- Ri ver a' s f i r st ar gument i s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed by gi vi ng hi m a sent ence t hat was, as he says, "gr ossl y

di spr opor t i onat e" t o the sent ence t hat was gi ven t o hi s br ot her ,

J ef f r ey, and t o sent ences gi ven t o def endant s i n cases he cl ai ms

i nvol ved si mi l ar conduct . 12 See 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) ( 6) ; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Reyes- Sant i ago, 804 F. 3d 453, 468 ( 1st Ci r . 2015)

( addr essi ng cl ai munder t he r ubr i c of subst ant i ve r easonabl eness) .

Sect i on 3553( a) ( 6) " i s pr i mar i l y ai med at nat i onal

di spar i t i es, r at her t han t hose bet ween co- def endant s. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Mar ceau, 554 F. 3d 24, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . "Unl ess t wo

' i dent i cal l y si t uat ed def endant s' r ecei ve di f f er ent sent ences f r om

t he same j udge, whi ch may be a r eason f or concer n, our general

r ul e of t humb i s t hat a ' def endant i s not ent i t l ed t o a l i ght er

sent ence merel y because hi s co- def endant s r ecei ved l i ght er

sent ences. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Gonzal ez, 626 F. 3d 639, 648

12 Reyes- Ri ver a t r i es t o char act er i ze t hi s as a pr ocedur aler r or , cl ai mi ng t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o consi der t he i ssue ofdi spar i t y. See 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) ( 6) . But el sewher e i n hi sbr i ef i ng, he admi t s t hat " t he cour t comment ed on t he i ssue ofdi spar i t y. " I ndeed, t he cour t expr essl y asked def ense counsel atsent enci ng t o addr ess t he di spar i t y i ssue r ai sed i n t he sent enci ngmemor andum.


20/23

- 20 -

( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Wal l ace, 573 F. 3d 82, 97

( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) .

Di l ean Reyes- Ri ver a and J ef f r ey wer e not i dent i cal l y

si t uat ed. Fi r st , and most i mpor t ant l y, t hey pl ed gui l t y t o

di f f er ent of f enses. Reyes- Ri ver a pl ed gui l t y t o bot h bank f r aud

and conspi r acy t o commi t wi r e f r aud, t he f i r st of whi ch car r i es a

maxi mumt er mof t hi r t y year s of i mpr i sonment , see 18 U. S. C. 1344.

J ef f r ey pl ed gui l t y onl y t o conspi r acy t o commi t wi r e f r aud, whi ch

means t hat J ef f r ey coul d not have been sentenced t o more than t he

f i ve- year st at ut or y maxi mum per mi t t ed f or t hat cr i me, see i d.

371, 1343. Second, as t he di st r i ct cour t f ound, Reyes- Ri ver a

"was consi der ed t he l eader , or gani zer of t he cr i mi nal act i vi t y. "

Reyes- Ri ver a admi t t ed t hat J ef f r ey f ol l owed hi s i nst r uct i ons and

t hat he never even expl ai ned t he busi ness t o J ef f r ey. The di st r i ct

cour t act ed wel l wi t hi n i t s di scret i on i n gi vi ng Reyes- Ri ver a a

har sher sent ence t han J ef f r ey. See Reyes- Sant i ago, 804 F. 3d at

467 ( "We have rout i nel y rej ect ed di spar i t y cl ai ms . . . because

compl ai ni ng def endant s t ypi cal l y f ai l t o acknowl edge mat er i al

di f f er ences bet ween t hei r own ci r cumst ances and t hose of t hei r

mor e l eni ent l y puni shed conf eder at es. " ) .

As t o nat i onal di spar i t y, Reyes- Ri ver a' s sent enci ng

memor andum br i ef l y di scussed t hr ee cases f r om t he Di st r i ct of

Puer t o Ri co and t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k t hat he al l eged

wer e subst ant i al l y si mi l ar t o hi s case, each of whi ch r esul t ed i n


21/23

- 21 -

a sent ence of f i f t y- one mont hs or f ewer . I n r esponse, t he di st r i ct

cour t st at ed:

I wi l l say t hat you have done an excel l ent j obi n r ai si ng t he i ssue of di spar i t y wi t hi n t hesame di st r i ct s. I do know t hat t he cases t hatyou have ci t ed i nvol ve perhaps huge amount s ofmoney. I don' t know what t he r ol e of each oneof t hose def endant s was. I don' t know howpersuasi ve t he argument s or t he backgr ound oft hi s def endant was i n t er ms of pr ognosi s f orr ehabi l i t at i on, t hei r ent i r e backgr ound, howmany peopl e wer e ef f ect ed [ si c] .

The di st r i ct cour t pl ai nl y consi dered Reyes- Ri ver a' s

sect i on 3553( a) ( 6) argument , and i t gave an adequate expl anat i on

f or why Reyes- Ri ver a' s case "was not i n the same camp" as t hose he

of f er ed. Uni t ed St at es v. Gar c a- Or t i z, 792 F. 3d 184, 192 ( 1st

Ci r . 2015) . 13

2. Upward Var i ance

Reyes- Ri ver a cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by

i mposi ng a seven- mont h upward var i ance t o account f or t he i mpact

t hat hi s Ponzi scheme had on hi s vi ct i ms. He cl ai ms that " t he

conduct descr i bed t o t he Cour t by t he var i ous vocal vi ct i ms was

13 Reyes- Ri ver a' s br i ef on appeal s i mpl y " i ncor por at es t heargument s set f or t h and submi t t ed i n t he sentenci ng memorandum. "That does not wor k. "Such an at t empt t o i ncor por at e by cr oss -r ef erence does not comport wi t h our ordi nary rul e t hat cl ai ms madet o t hi s cour t must be pr esent ed f ul l y i n an appel l at e br i ef andnot by cr oss- r ef er ence t o cl ai ms made i n t he di st r i ct cour t . "Lawr ence v. Gonzal es, 446 F. 3d 221, 226 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ; see al soFed. R. App. P. 28( a) ( 8) . "By f ai l i ng t o devel op" t hi s ar gumenton appeal , Reyes- Ri ver a "has wai ved [ hi s] cl ai m. " Uni ver sal I ns.Co. v. Of f i ce of I ns. Comm' r , 755 F. 3d 34, 3839 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .


22/23

- 22 -

al r eady f ul l y consi der ed and cal cul at ed i n t he advi sor y gui del i ne

of f ense l evel , and the var i ous enhancement s r ecommended i n the

def endant ' s sent ence gui del i nes cal cul at i on t hat was set f or t h i n

t he pl ea agr eement . " He al so makes a r el ated second argument : "A

cl ose exami nat i on of t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s comment s about t he

gui del i nes suggest s t hat t he sent enci ng j udge saw t he gui del i nes

sent enci ng as a mandat or y base- l i ne f r om whi ch t he cour t was t o

st eepl y upwar dl y depar t . " 14

The f i r st ar gument f ai l s. The di st r i ct cour t gave a

pl ausi bl e and sensi bl e r at i onal e f or pl aci ng par t i cul ar wei ght on

vi ct i m i mpact and cor r ect l y not ed - - cont r ar y t o Reyes- Ri ver a' s

cl ai m - - t hat cer t ai n aspect s of vi ct i m i mpact are not expr essl y

cont empl at ed i n t he gui del i nes:

Mr . Reyes made t he vi ct i ms bel i eve t hathe was sel l i ng hi gh yi el d i nvest ment pr oduct s

i n r et i r ement pl ans. I nst ead, he wasbasi cal l y awar e t hat al l of t hi s was l eadi ngt o a scheme. The vi ct i ms wer e most l y r et i r edempl oyees, unempl oyed i ndi vi dual s, personst hat basi cal l y di sposed of what ever t hey had,i ncl udi ng t hei r houses, credi t l i nes, i n or dert o make t hese i nvest ment s. . . .

I n gener al , most of . . . t he vi ct i msmor t gaged t hei r pr oper t i es, had t o go back t owor k af t er bei ng i n r et i r ement . Some of t hem

have i ncur r ed i n addi t i onal expenses, payi ngf or psychi at r i c or psychol ogi cal t r eat ment .

14 I t i s not t r ue t hat the di st r i ct cour t "st eepl y upwar dl ydepar t [ ed] . " The di st r i ct cour t , as we have f ound, cor r ect l ycal cul at ed t he gui del i nes sent enci ng range t o be 188 t o 235 mont hs.I n sent enci ng Reyes- Ri ver a t o 242 mont hs, t he di st r i ct cour t onl yi mposed a seven- mont h upward var i ance.


23/23

Some of t hem have at t empt ed sui ci de. Somehave suf f er ed car di ac ar r est andsympt oms. . . .

The gui del i nes do f act or i n t hechar act er i st i cs of t he cr i me, economi c l oss,t he number of vi ct i ms, but al l of t hat t hatyou hear d about i s not f act or ed i n. Al l t hoseot her expenses, i t ' s not even f act or ed i n i nt he amount s t hat t hey ar e cal cul at i ng f orr est i t ut i on pur poses. And t hose ar e l ossest hat t hey have exper i enced at t hi s t i me.

The cour t al so consi der ed t he "bl at ant di sr egar d" mani f est ed by

Reyes- Ri vera when he ref used t o retur n $5000 t o an i nvest or who

needed t he money t o t ake care of a bedr i dden cancer pat i ent . Thi s

expl anat i on was more t han adequat e enough t o j ust i f y t he r el at i vel y

mi nor seven- mont h var i ance.

The second ar gument i s easi l y di sposed of as wel l .

Readi ng t he sent enci ng t r anscr i pt as a whol e, i t i s obvi ous f r om

st at ement s i n t he r ecor d t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not consi der

t he gui del i nes t o be a mandat or y basel i ne.

3. Over l appi ng Enhancement s

Because the di st r i ct cour t pr ovi ded a pl ausi bl e and

sensi bl e r at i onal e f or t he sent ence i t i mposed, we f i nd no abuse

of di scr et i on i n i t s deci si on not t o adj ust downwar d t o count er act

t he ef f ect of t he var i ous enhancement s i t cor r ect l y appl i ed.

I V.

We af f i r m.

Documents

United States v. Reyes-Rivera, 1st Cir. (2016)