United States v. Torres-Landrua, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Torres-Landrua, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1674

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

CARLOS H. TORRES- LANDRA, a/ k/ a Car l i t os,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

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

[ Hon. J uan M. Pr ez- Gi mnez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Thompson, and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

Li nda Backi el , f or appel l ant .J eni f er Yoi s Her nndez- Vega, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,

wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,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, and J uan Car l os Reyes- Ramos, Assi st ant Uni t edSt at es At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

Apr i l 10, 2015


2/22

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Def endant Car l os Tor r es-

Landr a ( "Tor r es" ) was char ged wi t h t wo count s of dr ug- t r af f i cki ng

and one count of money l aunder i ng. He ent er ed a st r ai ght gui l t y

pl ea on al l count s and was sent enced t o a 168- mont h ter m of

i mpr i sonment , at t he ver y bot t om of hi s Gui del i nes i mpr i sonment

r ange. Tor r es now appeal s, ar gui ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

vi ol at ed hi s due pr ocess r i ght s and er r ed by decl i ni ng t o awar d hi m

a mi nor r ol e adj ust ment and a downward depar t ur e f or coer ci on and

dur ess. He al so chal l enges t he subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of hi s

sent ence. Fi ndi ng no er r or or abuse of di scr et i on, we af f i r m.

I. Facts

Because Tor r es pl ed gui l t y, our di scussi on of t he f act s

i s dr awn f r om t he change- of - pl ea col l oquy, t he Pr esent ence Repor t

( "PSR") , and t he t r anscr i pt of t he sent enci ng hear i ng. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Ci nt r nEchaut egui , 604 F. 3d 1, 2 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

Tor r es, t oget her wi t h at l east f i f t een ot her i ndi vi dual s,

par t i ci pat ed i n a dr ug- t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy t hat began on or

about t he year 2005 and ended i n J ul y 2010, and was headed by J os

Fi guer oa- Agost o, a/ k/ a " J uni or Cpsul a. " The conspi r acy t r anspor t ed

l ar ge amount s of cocai ne vi a mot or vessel s f r om t he Domi ni can

Republ i c t o Puer t o Ri co. Some of t he i mpor t ed cocai ne was sol d

l ocal l y i n Puer t o Ri co, whi l e t he r est was t r anspor t ed t o t he

cont i nent al Uni t ed St at es f or sal e. Some of t he dr ug pr oceeds wer e

smuggl ed i nto the Domi ni can Republ i c on t hese same vessel s.

-2-


3/22

Tor r es par t i ci pat ed i n at l east f i ve of t hese t r i ps. He

smuggl ed bet ween 150 t o 700 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne per t r i p and was

pai d a tot al of appr oxi mat el y $350, 000 f or hi s smuggl i ng vent ur es.

Each t r i p l ast ed t hr ee or f our days, dur i ng whi ch t i me he and hi s

co- conspi r at or s woul d st ay at Casa de Campo, an el i t e l uxur y resor t

i n La Romana, and woul d be ent er t ai ned by f emal e st r i ppers bef ore

r et ur ni ng t o Puer t o Ri co wi t h huge shi pment s of cocai ne.

The dr ug- t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy was pai r ed wi t h a money

l aunder i ng conspi r acy, whi ch engaged i n f i nanci al t r ansact i ons t o

pr omot e t he dr ug- t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy and conceal t he

i l l egi t i mat e nat ur e of t he dr ug pr oceeds. To t hat end, t he

conspi r acy used dr ug pr oceeds t o pur chase mot or vessel s t o be used

i n the dr ug smuggl i ng voyages f r omt he Domi ni can Republ i c, as wel l

as r eal est at e, mot or vehi cl es, and busi nesses. I n so doi ng, t he

or gani zat i on woul d gener al l y hi r e i ndi vi dual s wi t h qual i f yi ng

cr edi t r at i ngs t o act as " st r aw owner s. "

Tor r es was al so a member of t he money l aunder i ng

conspi r acy. He had one of t he vessel s t hat had been pur chased wi t h

dr ug pr oceeds t r ansf er r ed t o hi s name. Tor r es then l oaded t hi s

vessel wi t h dr ugs i n the Domi ni can Republ i c and smuggl ed t he dr ugs

i nt o Puer t o Ri co. Tor r es was al so pai d exor bi t ant amount s of

money, such as $11, 000 and $25, 000, t o si mpl y wash and r epai r j et

ski s i n t he Domi ni can Republ i c. Thi s money, pai d i n cash, was i n

act ual i t y obt ai ned f r om dr ug sal es.

-3-


4/22

Tor r es' s bi ggest and l ast dr ug smuggl i ng voyage t ook

pl ace i n J anuar y 2008. On t hat occasi on, he smuggl ed 700 ki l ogr ams

of cocai ne and was pai d $90, 000. Af t er t hi s t r i p, Tor r es di d not

par t i ci pat e i n any ot her t r i p, nor was he cal l ed by any co-

conspi r at or t o par t i ci pat e i n any f ur t her conspi r acy act i vi t y.

More t han t wo year s l at er , i n November 2010, Tor r es was

char ged, al ong wi t h ot her s, i n a mul t i - count i ndi ct ment .

Speci f i cal l y, Tor r es was char ged wi t h conspi r acy t o i mpor t

cont r ol l ed subst ances i nt o t he cust oms t er r i t or y of t he Uni t ed

St at es, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 963 ( Count I ) , conspi r acy t o

possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cont r ol l ed subst ances, i n

vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C. 846 ( Count I I ) , and conspi r acy t o l aunder

money, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1956( h) ( Count V) . Tor r es

ent er ed a st r ai ght gui l t y pl ea as t o al l count s.

The PSR was di scl osed t o t he par t i es on Sept ember 25,

2012, and t he par t i es wer e advi sed t hat any obj ect i on t o the f act s

and Gui del i nes appl i cat i ons shoul d be f i l ed i n wr i t i ng wi t hi n

f our t een days. No obj ect i ons wer e f i l ed wi t hi n t he pr escr i bed

deadl i ne. Two mont hs l at er , however , on November 28, 2012, t hr ough

hi s sent enci ng memorandum, Tor r es obj ect ed t o some sect i ons of t he

PSR, i ncl udi ng t he PSR' s gui del i nes cal cul at i on.

The sentenci ng hear i ng t ook pl ace on Apr i l 26, 2013.

Ther e, Tor r es ar gued t hat he compl i ed wi t h t he r equi r ements f or t he

-4-


5/22

"saf et y val ve" sent enci ng r el i ef1 under Uni t ed St ates Sent enci ng

Gui del i nes ( "U. S. S. G. " ) 5C1. 2 and was, t hus, ent i t l ed t o a t wo-

l evel r educt i on under U. S. S. G. 2D1. 1( b) ( 17) . 2 The di st r i ct cour t

gr ant ed sai d t wo- l evel r educt i on. Tor r es al so ar gued f or a mi nor

r ol e r educt i on under U. S. S. G. 3B1. 2, al l egi ng t hat he onl y had a

mi nor par t i n the dr ug conspi r acy, and request ed a downward

depar t ur e under U. S. S. G. 5K2. 12 f or al l eged coer ci on and dur ess.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t hese ot her r equest s.

Accor di ng t o hi s gui l t y pl ea, Tor r es was r esponsi bl e f or

150 ki l ogr ams or mor e of cocai ne, t r i gger i ng a base of f ense l evel

of t hi r t y- ei ght . A t wo- l evel i ncr ease was i mposed pur suant t o

U. S. S. G. 2S1. 1( b) ( 2) ( B) , because Tor r es was convi ct ed under 18

U. S. C. 1956 ( money l aunder i ng) . A t wo- l evel r educt i on was

gr ant ed f or hi s compl i ance wi t h t he "saf et y val ve" sent enci ng

r el i ef , and an addi t i onal t hr ee- l evel r educt i on was gr ant ed f or hi s

accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y. Thi s r esul t ed i n a t ot al of f ense

l evel of t hi r t y- f i ve. Si nce Tor r es had a cri mi nal hi st or y cat egor y

of I , t he appl i cabl e advi sor y Gui del i nes sent enci ng r ange ( "GSR")

was 168- 210 mont hs of i mpr i sonment , wi t h a f i ne r angi ng f r om

1 The pur pose of t he "saf et y val ve" pr ovi si on i s t o "mi t i gat e t hehar sh ef f ect of mandat or y mi ni mum sent ences on f i r st - t i me, l ow-

l evel of f ender s i n dr ug t r af f i cki ng schemes. " Uni t ed St at es v.Padi l l a- Col n, 578 F. 3d 23, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i onmar ks omi t t ed) . I n or der t o be el i gi bl e f or i t s r el i ef , adef endant must meet f i ve r equi r ement s, see 18 U. S. C. 3553( f ) ( 1) -( 5) , none of whi ch i s at i ssue her e.

2 Codi f i ed at U. S. S. G. 2D1. 1( b) ( 16) at t he t i me of sent enci ng.

-5-


6/22

$17, 500 t o $4, 000, 000 and a ter m of super vi sed r el ease of at l east

f i ve year s as t o Count s I and I I , and no mor e than t hr ee year s as

t o Count V, t o be ser ved concur r ent l y. The government r equest ed

t hat Tor r es be sent enced t o no l ess t han 168 mont hs of

i mpr i sonment , whi l e Tor r es asked f or a bel ow- Gui del i nes sent ence of

l ess t han t en year s of i mpr i sonment . Ul t i mat el y, t he cour t

sent enced Tor r es at t he bot t om of t he GSR - - t o 168 mont hs of

i mpr i sonment - - f ol l owed by super vi sed r el ease f or a t er m of f i ve

year s as t o Count s I and I I , and t hr ee year s as t o Count V, t o be

served concur r ent l y. No f i ne was i mposed. Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

II. Discussion of Torres's Claims

A. Torres's Due Process Rights Were Not Violated at His Sentencing

Hearing

Tor r es cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed at t he

sent enci ng hear i ng by not al l owi ng hi m t o pr esent evi dence of hi s

al l eged mi nor r ol e and by excl udi ng hi s t est i mony about what hehear d f r om ot her s i n t he conspi r acy, whi ch he i nt ended t o of f er as

pr oof t hat he was coer ced i nt o conspi r i ng wi t h hi s co- def endant s.

He al so cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by cr oss- exami ni ng

Tor r es and i nqui r i ng as t o whether he f aced r et al i at i on af t er he

l ef t t he conspi r acy. Accor di ng t o Tor r es, t hese er r or s amount ed t o

a vi ol at i on of hi s due pr ocess ri ght s. A car ef ul r evi ew of t her ecor d r ef l ect s t hat Tor r es' s al l egat i ons l ack mer i t .

At sent enci ng, when Tor r es i nt ended t o t est i f y about hi s

r ol e i n t he dr ug conspi r acy, t he di st r i ct cour t poi nt ed out t hat

-6-


7/22

Tor r es had not obj ect ed t o t he PSR, 3 whi ch had character i zed Tor r es

as a boat capt ai n and had not r ecommended t hat Tor r es be gr ant ed

any r educt i on f or hi s r ol e i n t he of f ense. Never t hel ess, t he cour t

cl ear l y st at ed t hat i t had consi der ed Tor r es' s ar gument s i ncl uded

i n hi s sent enci ng memor andum r egar di ng hi s al l eged mi nor r ol e i n

t he of f ense. Mor eover , t he r ecor d shows t hat hi s counsel was al so

al l owed t o ar gue vi gor ousl y about hi s al l eged mi nor r ol e, i ncl udi ng

t hat he was not a boat capt ai n and di d not have a boat capt ai n' s

l i cense.

The r ecor d al so r ef l ect s t hat Tor r es was i ndeed al l owed

t o t est i f y r egar di ng t he al l eged coer ci on he f el t f r om hi s co-

def endant s. Speci f i cal l y, Tor r es t est i f i ed about hi s r el at i onshi p

wi t h Kar eemBoschet t i ( "Boschet t i ") and how Boschet t i f i r st got hi m

i nvol ved wi t h t he conspi r acy and i nt r oduced hi mt o J uni or Cpsul a.

He al so t est i f i ed about J uni or Cpsul a' s al l egedl y vi ol ent and

aggr essi ve behavi or ( i ncl udi ng t he supposed shoot i ng of a t r uck

dr i ver who had cut hi m of f on t he r oad) , as wel l as hi s al l eged

t hr eat s t o Boschet t i and t o anot her co- conspi r at or named Di ego

Col n. Tor r es f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat J uni or Cpsul a and hi s

bodyguar ds woul d be ar med, whi l e no one el se was al l owed t o be

3 See D. P. R. Cr i m. R. 132( b) ( 3) ( r equi r i ng PSR obj ect i ons t o bef i l ed wi t hi n f our t een days) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ocasi o- Cancel , 727F. 3d 85, 92 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( "When a f act i s set out i n apr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r epor t and i s not t he subj ect of a t i mel yobj ect i on, t he di st r i ct cour t may t r eat t he f act as t r ue f orsent enci ng pur poses. " ) .

-7-


8/22

ar med, and t hat J uni or Cpsul a woul d quest i on co- conspi r at or s at

gun- poi nt . Tor r es al so t est i f i ed t hat he f el t coer ced dur i ng hi s

mul t i pl e t r i ps t o t he Domi ni can Republ i c wher e he st ayed at a

l uxur y resor t and spent t i me wi t h st r i pper s t hat "wer e br ought t o

hi m. " Accor di ng t o Tor r es, despi t e "enj oy[ i ng] " t he st r i pper s, he

was coerced because he "had t o pay" f or t hem, even t hough he had

not asked f or st r i pper s. I n addi t i on, Tor r es was al so al l owed t o

t est i f y about J uni or Cpsul a' s al l eged ki dnapi ng of Boschet t i

t owar ds t he end of hi s par t i ci pat i on i n t he conspi r acy. Fi nal l y,

dur i ng cr oss- exami nat i on Tor r es al so t est i f i ed about hi s deci si on

not t o par t i ci pat e i n any ot her t r i p. Tor r es acknowl edged t hat hi s

deci si on t o no l onger par t i ci pat e was communi cat ed to J uni or

Cpsul a, and that he was never cal l ed by any co- conspi r at or t o

par t i ci pat e i n anot her t r i p af t er t hat i nt ent i on was communi cat ed.

He al so admi t t ed not suf f er i ng any r et al i at i on f or hi s deci si on t o

not par t i ci pat e f ur t her . Af t er Tor r es t est i f i ed, hi s counsel was

al l owed t o ar gue on hi s behal f - - bot h as t o t he al l eged coer ci on

and mi nor r ol e. Counsel cont i nued hi s ar gument unt i l he st ar t ed

r epeat i ng hi msel f .

Tor r es ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t pr event ed hi mf r om

r espondi ng t o some quest i ons made by hi s counsel . Al t hough t he

r ecord r ef l ect s t hat t he gover nment obj ect ed t o some of t he

quest i ons made by Tor r es' s counsel and that some of t hese

-8-


9/22

obj ect i ons wer e sust ai ned, 4 t he di st r i ct cour t act ed wi t hi n i t s

di scr et i on i n excl udi ng t he test i mony obj ect ed t o, si nce Tor r es

l acked per sonal knowl edge of i t . The excl uded t est i mony const i t ut ed

hear say evi dence and Tor r es' s per sonal specul at i on, whi ch t he cour t

f ound unr el i abl e.

Al t hough t he Rul es of Evi dence do not appl y at a

sent enci ng hear i ng, see Uni t ed St ates v. Ocasi o- Cancel , 727 F. 3d

85, 91 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , t he cour t must be assur ed t hat any evi dence

car r i es "suf f i ci ent i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y t o suppor t i t s pr obabl e

accur acy. " Uni t ed St at es v. Zul et a- l var ez, 922 F. 2d 33, 36 ( 1st

Ci r . 1990) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . We

have r ecogni zed t hat t he di st r i ct cour t has "al most unf et t er ed

di scr et i on i n det er mi ni ng what i nf or mat i on i t wi l l hear and r el y

upon i n sent enci ng del i ber at i ons, " and t o deci de "not onl y t he

r el evance but al so t he r el i abi l i t y of t he sent enci ng i nf or mat i on. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Geer , 923 F. 2d 892, 897 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Gi ven t hat t he st at ement s

excl uded wer e basi cal l y r umors, 5 t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse

i t s di scr et i on i n concl udi ng t hat t hey wer e unr el i abl e and

excl udi ng t hem.

4 Tor r es i nt ended t o t est i f y about what ot her peopl e sai d aboutJ uni or Cpsul a.

5 Tor r es' s counsel made a pr of f er of hi s cl i ent ' s expect edt est i mony.

-9-


10/22

I n concl usi on, af t er car ef ul l y r evi ewi ng t he ent i r e

t r anscr i pt , i t i s cl ear t hat , t hr ough hi s sent enci ng memor andum,

hi s t est i mony at sent enci ng, and hi s counsel ' s argument s, Tor r es

ef f ect i vel y communi cat ed t he basi s f or hi s r equest s on adj ust ment s

and devi at i ons t o t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes dur i ng hi s sent enci ng

hear i ng. As di scussed i nf r a, t he di st r i ct cour t , however , r eached

a di f f er ent concl usi on wi t hi n i t s di scret i on; one t hat was

expounded and cl ar i f i ed f or t he r ecor d by t he di st r i ct j udge.

Fi nal l y, cont r ar y t o Tor r es' s asser t i ons, t he di str i ct

cour t di d not er r by cr oss- exami ni ng hi m and i nqui r i ng whet her he

f aced r et al i at i on af t er he l ef t t he dr ug conspi r acy. A j udge "has

a per f ect r i ght - - al bei t a r i ght t hat shoul d be exer ci sed wi t h

car e - - t o par t i ci pat e act i vel y" i n t he pr oceedi ngs. Logue v.

Dor e, 103 F. 3d 1040, 1045 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) . I t i s "beyond cavi l

t hat a t r i al j udge i n t he f eder al syst em r et ai ns t he common l aw

power t o quest i on wi t nesses and t o anal yze, di ssect , expl ai n,

summar i ze, and comment on t he evi dence. " I d. The j udge' s r i ght t o

par t i ci pat e i s even gr eat er at sent enci ng t han dur i ng t he j ur y

t r i al , gi ven hi s rol e i n sent enci ng. Al t hough, of cour se, t her e

ar e l i nes a j udge shoul d not cr oss, such as unbal anced

par t i ci pat i on, becomi ng an advocat e or ot her wi se usi ng hi s j udi ci al

power s t o advant age or di sadvant age a par t y unf ai r l y, see i d. ,

t her e i s no i ndi cat i on i n t he t r anscri pt of Tor r es' s sent enci ng

hear i ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t cr ossed t he l i ne her e. The cour t ' s

-10-


11/22

quest i oni ng was shor t , neut r al , and r el evant t o t he i ssues. Havi ng

cl ai med t hat he par t i ci pat ed i n t he dr ug conspi r acy out of f ear of

r et al i at i on, i t was wi t hi n t he di st r i ct j udge' s power t o i nqui r e

f r om Tor r es when hi s par t i ci pat i on i n t he conspi r acy had ended and

i f he had suf f er ed any ki nd of r et al i at i on f or i t . Accor di ngl y,

Tor r es' s due pr ocess r i ght s wer e not vi ol at ed dur i ng hi s sentenci ng

hear i ng.

B. Denial of Role Reduction

"[ W] e r ar el y r ever se a di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on

r egar di ng whet her t o appl y a mi nor r ol e adj ust ment . " Uni t ed St at es

v. Br avo, 489 F. 3d 1, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Ol i ver o, 552 F. 3d 34, 41 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( "[ B] at t l es over a

def endant ' s st at us . . . wi l l al most al ways be won or l ost i n t he

di st r i ct cour t . " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) .

The Sent enci ng Gui del i nes al l ow a cour t t o awar d a t wo-

l evel r educt i on t o a def endant who was a mi nor par t i ci pant i n t he

cr i mi nal act i vi t y. U. S. S. G. 3B1. 2. "To qual i f y as a mi nor

par t i ci pant , a def endant must pr ove t hat he i s bot h l ess cul pabl e

t han hi s cohor t s i n t he par t i cul ar cr i mi nal endeavor and l ess

cul pabl e than t he maj or i t y of t hose wi t hi n t he uni ver se of per sons

par t i ci pat i ng i n si mi l ar cr i mes. " Uni t ed St at es v. Tr i ni dad-

Acost a, 773 F. 3d 298, 315- 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es

v. Sant os, 357 F. 3d 136, 142 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ) .

-11-


12/22

Bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t , Tor r es ar gued i n hi s

sent enci ng memorandumand at hi s sent enci ng hear i ng t hat he shoul d

be gr ant ed a t wo- l evel r educt i on f or hi s al l eged mi nor r ol e i n t he

dr ug conspi r acy. The di st r i ct cour t poi nt ed out t hat Tor r es had

not obj ect ed t o t he PSR' s char act er i zat i on of Tor r es' s r ol e.

Never t hel ess, i t consi der ed Tor r es' s r equest , but r ej ect ed i t ,

f i ndi ng t hat Tor r es' s par t i ci pat i on i n at l east f i ve smuggl i ng

vent ur es, i n whi ch he was ent r ust ed wi t h huge amount s of dr ugs and

smuggl ed around 2, 000 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne, and f or whi ch he was

pai d $350, 000, di d not make hi m a mi nor par t i ci pant .

On appeal , Tor r es al l eges f or t he f i r st t i me t hat hi s

mi nor r ol e shoul d be consi der ed i n t er ms of t he money l aunder i ng

conspi r acy and not of t he dr ug conspi r acy. Accor di ng t o Tor r es,

pur suant t o U. S. S. G. 2S1. 1 and i t s appl i cat i on not e 2( C) , 6 t he

cour t shoul d di sr egar d any act i vi t y of t he dr ug conspi r acy, even i f

i t i s r el at ed t o that of t he money l aunder i ng conspi r acy and,

i nst ead, shoul d f ocus excl usi vel y on t he el ement s and act s of money

l aunder i ng i ncl uded i n Count V of t he i ndi ct ment . Fol l owi ng t hi s

6 Appl i cat i on not e 2( C) st at es as f ol l ows:

Not wi t hst andi ng 1B1. 5( c) , i n cases i n whi chsubsect i on ( a) ( 1) appl i es, appl i cat i on of any

Chapt er Thr ee adj ust ment shal l be det ermi nedbased on t he of f ense cover ed by t hi s gui del i ne( i . e. , t he l aunder i ng of cri mi nal l y der i vedf unds) and not on t he under l yi ng of f ense f r omwhi ch t he l aundered f unds were der i ved.

U. S. S. G. 2S1. 1 cmt . n. 2( C) .

-12-


13/22

l i ne, Tor r es ar gues t hat hi s par t i ci pat i on i n t he money l aunder i ng

conspi r acy was mi nor because he was mer el y a "st r aw man, " whose

onl y par t i ci pat i on was t o al l ow a vessel ' s t i t l e t o be t r ansf er r ed

t o hi s name, 7whi l e ot her co- conspi r at or s pl ayed mor e act i ve r ol es,

such as pur chasi ng mar i ne vehi cl es wi t h dr ug pr oceeds.

I n response, t he gover nment ar gues t hat Tor r es' s cl ai m

r egar di ng hi s al l eged mi nor r ol e i n t he money l aunder i ng i s wai ved

because he di d not advance i t at t he di st r i ct cour t . The

gover nment al so ar gues t hat , even i f we wer e t o consi der t hi s i ssue

on t he mer i t s, U. S. S. G. 2S1. 1' s appl i cat i on not e 2( C) does not

abr ogat e t he Gui del i nes' s r el evant conduct r ul es, as set f or t h i n

U. S. S. G. 1B1. 3, whi ch st ate t hat al l adj ust ment s must be made on

t he basi s of al l r el evant conduct , and not sol el y on t he basi s of

el ement s and act s ci t ed i n t he count of convi ct i on. See U. S. S. G.

3B. Accor di ngl y, t he gover nment posi t s t hat some of t he act i vi t y

of t he dr ug conspi r acy const i t ut es conduct r el evant t o t he money

l aunder i ng and, t hus, shoul d be taken i nt o account i n eval uat i ng

Tor r es' s r ol e i n t he money l aunder i ng conspi r acy. Fur t hermor e, t he

gover nment argues t hat , even i gnor i ng t he r el evant conduct r ul es,

Tor r es' s par t i ci pat i on i n t he money l aunder i ng conspi r acy

excl usi vel y was not mi nor 8 and t hat , i n any event , he f ai l ed t o

7 He t hen l oaded t hi s vessel wi t h dr ugs f r om t he Domi ni canRepubl i c and smuggl ed t hem i nt o Puer t o Ri co.

8 The gover nment ar gues t hat , i n addi t i on t o Tor r es' spar t i ci pat i on i n a t r ansact i on desi gned t o conceal t he owner shi p of

-13-


14/22

show t hat he was l ess cul pabl e than the maj or i t y of t hose

par t i ci pat i ng i n money l aunder i ng of f enses, whi ch on i t s own

j ust i f i es t he deni al of a r ol e r educt i on.

We agr ee wi t h t he government t hat Tor r es' s argument i s

wai ved. Fi r st , t he PSR r ecommended t hat no adj ust ment be gr ant ed

f or Tor r es' s rol e i n t he of f ense. Tor r es di d not obj ect t o t hi s

wi t hi n t he deadl i ne est abl i shed t o do so. 9 Then, t wo mont hs l at er ,

he ar gued i n hi s sent enci ng memorandum t hat he had a mi nor r ol e i n

t he dr ug conspi r acy, and al l hi s di scussi on as t o thi s i ssue was

cent er ed on t he dr ug conspi r acy. At t he sent enci ng hear i ng, he

once agai n r equest ed a mi nor r ol e r educt i on, excl usi vel y ar gui ng i t

as t o t he dr ug conspi r acy. However , af t er t hat pr oved

unsuccessf ul , he now t ur ns t o a new argument di f f er ent t han t he one

he pr esented bel ow. He has now shi f t ed t he f ocus of hi s argument

f r om t he dr ug conspi r acy t o t he money l aunder i ng conspi r acy and

ar gues t hat t he cour t er r ed i n consi der i ng t he pr eci se evi dence

t hat he asked i t t o consi der . Havi ng swi t ched t act i cs thi s way so

l at e i n the game, Tor r es has wai ved the ar gument t hat he now seeks

t o pur sue. See Uni t ed St ates v. Acost a- Col n, 741 F. 3d 179, 209- 10

t he boat used by hi m and hi s cohor t s dur i ng Tor r es' s l ast and most

pr of i t abl e dr ug smuggl i ng vent ur e, Tor r es al so engaged i n moneyl aunder i ng sever al t i mes by washi ng and r epai r i ng j et ski s andvessel s f or "absur dl y hi gh amount s of cash" ( such as $11, 000 and$25, 000) , "knowi ng t hat t he t r ansact i ons wer e a f acade desi gned t oconceal pr oceeds f r om unl awf ul act i vi t y. "

9 See f oot not e 3, supr a.

-14-


15/22

( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( " [ A] cr i mi nal def endant , unhappy wi t h a j udge' s

r ul i ng yet per suaded t hat hi s or i gi nal ar gument s l acked mer i t ,

cannot swi t ch hor ses mi d- st r eam i n hopes of l ocat i ng a swi f t er

st eed. " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Di et z, 950 F. 2d 50, 55 ( 1st Ci r .

1991) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ) . 10

C. Denial of a Downward Departure for Coercion or Duress

Tor r es next ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n not

gr ant i ng hi s r equest f or a downwar d depar t ur e f or coer ci on or

duress.

At sent enci ng, Tor r es ar gued t hat a depar t ur e under

U. S. S. G. 5K2. 12 f or coer ci on or dur ess not amount i ng t o a

10 Even had Tor r es not wai ved hi s argument , and assumi ng, wi t houtdeci di ng, t hat t he f ocus shoul d have been on t he money l aunder i ngact i vi t y i nst ead of t he dr ug act i vi t y, he woul d not have beenent i t l ed t o a mi nor r ol e r educt i on because he di d not show, as wasr equi r ed under Sect i on 3B1. 2( b) , t hat he was l ess cul pabl e t han t hemaj or i t y of t hose convi ct ed of si mi l ar cr i mes. See Tr i ni dad-

Acost a, 773 F. 3d at 315- 16. I t i s uncl ear f r om t he br i ef s whet her Tor r es i s al so st i l lpr essi ng hi s argument t hat he was ent i t l ed t o a mi nor r ol er educt i on i n hi s of f ense l evel based on hi s al l eged mi nor r ol e i nt he dr ug conspi r acy. Nonet hel ess, out of an abundance of caut i on,we addr ess i t and concl ude that he di d not show t hat he was l esscul pabl e t han t he maj or i t y of dr ug t r af f i cki ng of f ender s. See i d.Mor eover , t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs about Tor r es' s r ol e wer esuppor t ed by t he r ecor d and, t hus, wer e not cl ear l y er r oneous. Seei d. at 315 ( "The di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on whet her t o gr ant adownwar d adj ust ment f or a mi nor r ol e i s usual l y a f act - based

deci si on t hat we r evi ew f or cl ear er r or . ") ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at esv. Rosa- Car i no, 615 F. 3d 75, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) ; see al so Uni t edSt at es v. Espi nal - Al mei da, 699 F. 3d 588, 619- 20 n. 30 ( 1st Ci r .2012) ( uphol di ng as a "pl ausi bl e [ sent enci ng] r at i onal e" t hedi st r i ct cour t ' s vi ew t hat when a gr oup of i ndi vi dual s "embar k wi t han advent ur e" t o smuggl e 418 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne i nt o Puer t o Ri coby boat , "nobody pl ays a mi nor r ol e i n t hat boat " ) .

-15-


16/22

compl et e def ense was war r ant ed because he had been subj ect t o

coer ci on and dur ess f r om J uni or Cpsul a and co- conspi r at or

Boschet t i . Speci f i cal l y, he ar gued t hat he and Boschet t i had been

l ong- t i me nei ghbor s and t hat he saw Boschet t i as an ol der br ot her .

Accor di ng t o Tor r es, when he was f i f t een or si xt een, he st ar t ed t o

work par t - t i me as a mechani c at Boschet t i ' s garage. Af t er some

t i me, he became a f ul l - t i me empl oyee and even got t o r un t he

busi ness. Tor r es cl ai ms that , at some poi nt i n t i me, Boschet t i

st ar t ed t aki ng hi m on t r i ps t o t he Domi ni can Republ i c t o wor k on

j et ski s, f or whi ch he was pai d exor bi t ant amount s of cash, whi ch

made hi msuspi ci ous t hat somet hi ng i l l egal was goi ng on. Accor di ng

t o Tor r es, whi l e i n t he Domi ni can Republ i c, he asked Boschet t i

about what was goi ng on and Boschet t i expl ai ned t o hi m t he i l l egal

nat ur e of t he acti vi t i es. Boschet t i t hen i nvi t ed Tor r es t o j oi n

hi m i n a dr ug smuggl i ng vent ur e to Puer t o Ri co, whi ch Tor r es

accept ed because he al l egedl y f el t coer ced due t o hi s l ong- t i me

r el at i onshi p wi t h Boschet t i . Tor r es al so cl ai ms t hat he hear d

st or i es about J uni or Cpsul a' s vi ol ent ways of deal i ng wi t h

si t uat i ons; t hat whi l e Tor r es was i n t he Domi ni can Republ i c, he saw

J uni or Cpsul a poi nt i ng guns at co- conspi r at or s whi l e he quest i oned

t hem; and that Tor r es was t hr eat ened t hat i f he wi t hdr ew f r om t he

conspi r aci es, he woul d suf f er r et al i at i on.

At sent enci ng, Tor r es cl ai med t hat t hi s showed he was

subj ect t o coer ci on and dur ess t hat , al t hough not amount i ng to a

-16-


17/22

compl et e def ense, ent i t l ed hi m t o a downwar d depar t ur e. The

di st r i ct cour t deni ed hi s r equest .

On appeal , Tor r es cl ai ms t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by

al l egedl y r equi r i ng hi m t o pr ove coer ci on and dur ess amount i ng t o

a compl et e def ense.

A showi ng of ser i ous coerci on and dur ess not amount i ng t o

a compl et e def ense may st i l l pl ay a r ol e at sent enci ng t o per mi t a

downwar d depar t ure under t he Gui del i nes. 11 See Uni t ed St ates v.

Amparo, 961 F. 2d 288, 292 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( " [ T]he t ype and ki nd of

evi dence necessar y t o suppor t a downwar d depar t ure pr emi sed on

dur ess i s somewhat l ess t han t hat necessary t o suppor t a def ense of

dur ess at t r i al . ") ; Uni t ed St at es v. Sachdev, 279 F. 3d 25, 28 ( 1st

11 To t hat ef f ect , t he Gui del i ne addr essi ng pot ent i al depar t ur esf or coer ci on or dur ess st at es:

I f t he def endant commi t t ed t he of f ense because of ser i ouscoer ci on, bl ackmai l or dur ess, under ci r cumst ances notamount i ng t o a compl et e def ense, t he cour t may depar tdownwar d. The extent of t he decr ease or di nar i l y shoul ddepend on t he r easonabl eness of t he def endant ' s act i ons,on t he pr opor t i onal i t y of t he def endant ' s act i ons t o t heser i ousness of coer ci on, bl ackmai l , or dur ess i nvol ved,and on t he ext ent t o whi ch t he conduct woul d have beenl ess har mf ul under t he ci r cumst ances as t he def endantbel i eved t hem t o be. Or di nar i l y coer ci on wi l l besuf f i ci ent l y ser i ous t o war r ant depar t ur e onl y when i ti nvol ves a thr eat of physi cal i nj ur y, subst ant i al damage

t o pr oper t y or si mi l ar i nj ur y r esul t i ng f r omt he unl awf ulact i on of a thi r d par t y or f r om a nat ur al emer gency.Not wi t hst andi ng thi s pol i cy stat ement , per sonal f i nanci aldi f f i cul t i es and economi c pr essures upon a t r ade orbusi ness do not war r ant a downwar d depar t ure.

U. S. S. G. 5K2. 12.

-17-


18/22

Ci r . 2002) ( not i ng t hat "not al l t ypes of coer ci on or dur ess may be

t he basi s f or a depar t ur e" ; t he dur ess must be ser i ous) . A

def endant must show a subj ect i ve bel i ef t hat a t hr eat has been

made, and t he di st r i ct cour t must al so obj ect i vel y det er mi ne t hat

a r easonabl e per son i n t he def endant ' s posi t i on woul d per cei ve

t her e t o be a t hr eat amount i ng t o ser i ous coer ci on or dur ess.

Sachdev, 279 F. 3d at 29. The def endant bear s the bur den of

pr ovi ng, by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence, hi s el i gi bi l i t y f or a

Gui del i nes depar t ur e. I d. at 28.

Tor r es f r ames hi s cl ai mas one of l egal i nt er pr et at i on of

t he amount of coer ci on or dur ess r equi r ed under t he Gui del i nes - -

namel y, t hat t he di st r i ct cour t r equi r ed hi m t o pr ove a compl et e

coer ci on or dur ess def ense t o get t he depar t ur e. But i t i s cl ear

f r om t he r ecor d t hat t he cour t di d no such t hi ng. Rat her , t he

di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he depar t ur e because i t f ound t hat Tor r es' s

al l egat i ons l acked cr edi bi l i t y and t hat t he exor bi t ant amount s of

cash pai d t o Tor r es bel i ed hi s al l egat i ons of ser i ous coer ci on.

Speci f i cal l y, t he di str i ct j udge str essed t hat af t er hi s l ast

smuggl i ng vent ur e i n J anuar y 2008, Tor r es di d not par t i ci pat e i n

any ot her act i vi t y and was not even cal l ed by any co- conspi r at or t o

make any ot her t r i ps. Yet , Tor r es di d not suf f er any r et al i at i on

what soever f r omJ uni or Cpsul a or anyone el se. Consequent l y, t hi s

ar gument goes nowher e.

-18-


19/22

D. Reasonableness of Torres's Sentence

We r evi ew t he subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of t he sent ence

i mposed under an abuse- of - di scr et i on st andar d. Tr i ni dad- Acost a,

773 F. 3d at 309. I n conduct i ng t hi s r evi ew, we t ake i nt o account

"t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances. " I d. "Gener al l y, no abuse of

di scr et i on i s f ound as l ong as t he cour t has pr ovi ded a pl ausi bl e

expl anat i on, and t he over al l r esul t i s def ensi bl e. " I d. at 321

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d 87, 96 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) )

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . "Ther e i s no si ngl e r easonabl e

sent ence i n any par t i cul ar case but , r at her , a uni ver se of

r easonabl e out comes. " Uni t ed St ates v. Wal ker , 665 F. 3d 212, 234

( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

Tor r es ar gues t hat hi s sent ence, at t he ver y bot t om of

t he advi sor y GSR, i s subst ant i vel y unr easonabl e because he was

sent enced t o a t er m equal or l onger t han some of hi s more i nvol ved

co- conspi r at or s. He cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t "mechani st i cal l y

appl i ed t he Gui del i nes as cal cul at ed i n t he PSR wi t hout consi der i ng

whether t hei r r ecommended sent ence was appr opr i at e . . . gi ven t he

ci r cumst ances of hi s i nvol vement , " and wi t hout consi der i ng whet her

t he sent ence was "not gr eater t han necessary. "

Tor r es has f ai l ed t o car r y t he "heavy bur den" of

chal l engi ng as unr easonabl e a wi t hi n- t he- r ange sent ence. See

Tr i ni dad- Acost a, 773 F. 3d at 309 ( " [ A] def endant who at t empt s t o

br and a wi t hi n- t he- r ange sent ence as unr easonabl e must car r y a

-19-


20/22

heavy bur den. " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Pel l et i er , 469 F. 3d 194,

204 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cl ogst on, 662 F. 3d 588,

592- 93 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "Chal l engi ng a sent ence as subst ant i vel y

unr easonabl e i s a bur densome t ask i n any case, and one t hat i s even

more bur densome where, as here, t he chal l enged sent ence i s wi t hi n

a pr oper l y cal cul at ed GSR. " ) .

At Tor r es' s sent enci ng hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t made

cl ear t hat i t had r evi ewed t he advi sor y Gui del i nes cal cul at i ons, as

wel l as al l t he sent enci ng f act or s set f or t h i n 18 U. S. C.

3553( a) , i ncl udi ng Tor r es' s hi st or y and char act er i st i cs, t he need

t o pr omot e r espect f or t he l aw, t o pr ot ect t he publ i c f r om f ur t her

cr i mes f r om Tor r es, and t he need f or det er r ence and puni shment . 12

The sentenci ng cour t al so t ook i nt o consi derat i on t he ser i ousness

of t he of f ense and Tor r es' s r ol e i n i t , wher e "dr ug pr oceeds wer e

t aken f r omPuer t o Ri co t o t he Domi ni can Republ i c and mul t i - ki l ogr am

quant i t i es of cocai ne wer e br ought f r om t he Domi ni can Republ i c t o

Puer t o Ri co, usi ng pl easur e boat s. " Af t er t aki ng i nt o

consi der at i on al l t he sent enci ng f act or s, t he sent enci ng cour t

concl uded t hat a sent ence at t he l ower end of t he GSR was adequat e.

Tor r es' s di f f er ent vi ew about t he si gni f i cance of hi s r ol e i n t he

of f ense, or hi s own wei ghi ng of t he ot her sent enci ng f act or s, does

12 The sent enci ng j udge' s st at ement t hat he consi der ed al l t he 18U. S. C. 3553( a) sent enci ng f act or s "i s ent i t l ed t o si gni f i cantwei ght . " Uni t ed St at es v. Sant i ago- Ri ver a, 744 F. 3d 229, 233 ( 1stCi r . 2014) .

-20-


21/22

not mean t hat t he sent enci ng cour t ' s vi ew was unr easonabl e. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Dvi l a- Gonzl ez, 595 F. 3d 42, 49 ( 1st Ci r . 2010)

( "A cr i mi nal def endant i s ent i t l ed t o a wei ghi ng of t he sect i on

3553( a) f act or s t hat ar e r el evant t o hi s case, not t o a par t i cul ar

r esul t . " ( al t er at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

Nor i s t he sent ence unr easonabl e because t he sent enci ng cour t

expl ai ned some f actors more t han others. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Mur phy- Corder o, 715 F. 3d 398, 402 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( " [ A] wi t hi n- t he-

r ange sent ence t ypi cal l y r equi r es a l ess el abor at e expl anat i on t han

a var i ant sent ence. ") .

Fur t her mor e, Tor r es " i s not ent i t l ed t o a l i ght er

sent ence mer el y because [ some of ] hi s co- def endant s r ecei ved

l i ght er sent ences. " Dvi l a- Gonzl ez, 595 F. 3d at 50 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Thi s i s especi al l y t r ue

wher e, as her e, Tor r es f ai l ed t o show t hat t hey wer e " i dent i cal l y

si t uat ed" t o hi m. See Uni t ed St at es v. Wal l ace, 573 F. 3d 82, 97

( 1st Ci r . 2009) . I n any event , "[ a] di st r i ct cour t ' s consi der at i on

of sent enci ng di spar i t y ai ms pr i mar i l y at t he mi ni mi zat i on of

di spar i t i es among def endant s nat i onal l y, " and not among co-

def endant s. Dvi l a- Gonzl ez, 595 F. 3d at 49 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

I n concl usi on, Tor r es' s sent ence, at t he ver y bot t om of

hi s GSR, was wi t hi n the uni ver se of r easonabl e out comes and, t hus,

def ensi bl e. See Espi nal - Al mei da, 699 F. 3d at 620 ( f i ndi ng t hat t he

-21-


22/22

sent ence at t he "absol ut e bot t om[ of ] t he Gui del i nes r ange" i mposed

on a f i r st t i me of f ender convi ct ed of conspi r i ng t o smuggl e by sea

418 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne f r om t he Domi ni can Republ i c t o Puer t o

Ri co, was def ensi bl e, and not i ng t hat " i t wi l l be t he r ar e case i n

whi ch a wi t hi n- t he- r ange sent ence can be f ound t o t r ansgress t he

par si mony pr i nci pl e" ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on

omi t t ed) ) .

III. Conclusion

The r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat Tor r es was gr ant ed a f ai r

sent enci ng hear i ng, t hat he was not ent i t l ed t o a mi nor r ol e

r educt i on, t hat t he deni al of a downwar d depar t ur e f or ser i ous

coer ci on or dur ess was wi t hi n t he di scr et i on of t he di st r i ct cour t ,

and t hat hi s sent ence was reasonabl e. Accor di ngl y, hi s sent ence i s

af f i r med.

Affirmed.

-22-

Documents

United States v. Torres-Landrua, 1st Cir. (2015)