united states v. pizarro, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Pizarro, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/104

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1759

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

ANGEL LUI S PI ZARRO, a/ k/ a WEE,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Gust avo A. Gel p , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Li pez and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

Maur i ci o Her nndez Ar r oyo f or appel l ant .Myr i am Yvet t e Fer nndez- Gonzl ez, 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 esAt 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 Thomas F. Kl umper , Assi st ant Uni t edSt at es At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

November 14, 2014


2/104

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. I n t hi s appeal of Angel Lui s

Pi zar r o- Mor al es ( "Pi zar r o") f r om hi s convi ct i on and sent ence f or

conspi r acy t o di st r i but e cocai ne and her oi n and f or possessi on wi t h

i nt ent t o di st r i but e cocai ne, we must exami ne the i mpact of Al l eyne

v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2151 ( 2013) , on t he aggr avat ed dr ug

conspi r acy and possessi on convi ct i ons. Pur suant t o t hat i nqui r y,

we hol d t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by f ai l i ng t o i nst r uct t he

j ury on t he essent i al el ement of i ndi vi dual i zed drug quant i t y f or

t he aggr avat ed conspi r acy count and the essent i al el ement of dr ug

quant i t y f or t he aggr avat ed possessi on count bef or e appl yi ng a

st atut ory sent enci ng r ange that i ncl uded a mandatory mi ni mum

sentence on each count . However , si nce we "concl ude[ ] beyond a

r easonabl e doubt t hat t he omi t t ed el ement [ s] [ were] uncont est ed and

suppor t ed by over whel mi ng evi dence, such t hat t he j ur y ver di ct

woul d have been t he same absent t he er r or[ s] , " we f i nd t he

i nst r uct i onal Al l eyne er r or s har ml ess. Neder v. Uni t ed St at es, 527

U. S. 1, 17 ( 1999) . Ther ef or e, we af f i r mPi zar r o' s convi ct i ons f or

t he aggr avated conspi r acy and possessi on char ges wi t h enhanced dr ug

quant i t i es under 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) .

St i l l , we must vacat e Pi zar r o' s sent ence and r emand f or

a f our t h sent enci ng under 841( b) ( 1) ( A) because t he di st r i ct cour t

over l ooked our pr i or r emand or der by r ef usi ng t o engage i n

cr edi bi l i t y assessment s wi t h r espect t o t he conspi r acy dr ug

-2-


3/104

quant i t y t he cour t at t r i but ed t o Pi zar r o and by ref usi ng t o

consi der Pi zar r o' s ar gument s r egar di ng t he f i r ear m enhancement .

I.

A. First Sentencing and Appeal

Af t er a t en- def endant t r i al t hat l ast ed appr oxi mat el y

seven mont hs i n 1999, Pi zar r o was f ound gui l t y of conspi r acy t o

di st r i but e cocai ne and her oi n and possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o

di st r i but e cocai ne. I n 2002, pur suant t o an or der of t he Fi r st

Ci r cui t J udi ci al Counci l , t he case was r eassi gned f or sent enci ng. 1

The st at utor y sentenci ng r anges f or drug conspi r acy and

possessi on, pr escr i bed i n 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) , var y dependi ng

upon t he amount of dr ugs i nvol ved. For a conspi r acy or possessi on

t hat i nvol ves onl y smal l or non- quant i f i ed amount s of cocai ne or

her oi n, t her e i s no mandat or y mi ni mum sent ence and the st at ut or y

maxi mum sentence i s twent y years of i mpr i sonment . See 21 U. S. C.

841( b) ( 1) ( C) . At t he ot her end of t he spect r um, when a

conspi r acy or possessi on i nvol ves f i ve ki l ogr ams or mor e of cocai ne

or one ki l ogr am or mor e of a mi xtur e or subst ance cont ai ni ng a

det ect abl e amount of her oi n, t he sent enci ng r ange r uns f r om a

1 I n r esponse to a backl og of cases on t he t r i al j udge' sdocket , t he case was r andoml y r eassi gned t o anot her di st r i ct j udgeso t hat sent enci ng coul d be expedi t ed. See Uni t ed St at es v. Casas,425 F. 3d 23, 54- 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .

-3-


4/104

mandatory mi ni mum of t en years t o a maxi mum of l i f e i mpr i sonment .

I d. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) . 2

At sent enci ng, t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat

841( b) ( 1) ( A) ' s st at ut or y maxi mum of l i f e i mpr i sonment appl i ed

because t he conspi r acy i nvol ved f i ve ki l ogr ams or mor e of cocai ne

or one ki l ogr am or mor e of a mi xtur e or subst ance cont ai ni ng

her oi n. By a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence, t he cour t f ound

Pi zar r o account abl e f or mor e t han 150 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne and

appl i ed a t wo- l evel enhancement f or weapon possessi on and a t hr ee-

l evel r ol e enhancement . The cour t t hen i mposed a l i f e sent ence,

whi ch at t hat t i me was mandated by t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes.

Pi zar r o appeal ed hi s convi ct i on and sent ence. We af f i r med

Pi zar r o' s convi ct i on but vacat ed hi s sent ence because of er r or

under Uni t ed St at es v. Booker , 543 U. S. 220 ( 2005) . See Uni t ed

St at es v. Casas, 425 F. 3d 23, 59- 60 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . 3

Pi zar r o and mul t i pl e co- appel l ant s al so ar gued t hat t her e

was er r or under Appr endi v. New J ersey, 530 U. S. 466 ( 2000) . 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

2 Sect i on 841( b) ( 1) ( B) pr ovi des f or a f i ve- year mandat or ymi ni mum and a f or t y- year st at ut or y maxi mum sent ence f or speci f i eddr ug quant i t i es l ess t han t hose l i st ed i n subsect i on ( A) .

3 We hel d t hat Booker er r or exi st ed i nsof ar as t he sent enci nghad occur r ed under a mandatory Gui del i nes syst em. Gi ven t hat t hegover nment conceded t hat i t coul d not pr ove har ml ess er r or , i . e. ,i t coul d not "show beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat a l ower sent encewoul d not be i mposed under t he post - Booker r egi me, " we vacat edPi zar r o' s sent ence and r emanded f or r esent enci ng. Casas, 425 F. 3dat 59- 60.

-4-


5/104

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 t he pr escr i bed st atut ory maxi mum must be submi t t ed t o a

j ury, and proved beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " I d. at 490. Pi zar r o

and hi s co- appel l ant s asser t ed t hat si nce dr ug quant i t y f or t he

conspi r acy count was a f act t hat i ncr eased t he st at ut or y maxi mum

sent ence, i t shoul d have been f ound by a j ur y beyond a reasonabl e

doubt . They ar gued t hat i n t he absence of such a j ur y

det er mi nat i on, 841( b) ( 1) ( C) ' s def aul t st at ut or y maxi mumsent ence

of t went y year s shoul d have appl i ed t o the conspi r acy count .

I n r esponse t o thi s ar gument , we hel d t hat " f or Appr endi

pur poses, i t i s t he dr ug quant i t y at t r i but abl e t o t he ent i r e

conspi r acy t hat det ermi nes t he st atut ory maxi mum. " Casas, 425 F. 3d

at 66 n. 58. We concl uded t hat any Appr endi er r or , i f one occur r ed,

was harml ess because ( 1) t he evi dence over whel mi ngl y est abl i shed

t hat t he conspi r acy i nvol ved at l east f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne or

one ki l ogr amof her oi n, amount s t hat support a st at ut or y maxi mumof

l i f e i mpr i sonment , and ( 2) Pi zar r o and hi s co- appel l ant s had not

poi nt ed t o any evi dence t hat t he conspi r acy- wi de quant i t y was under

t hat t hr eshol d amount or of f ered any ar gument as t o how t he j ur y

coul d have f ound ot her wi se. I d. at 65- 66. We expl ai ned t hat t he

appel l ant s di d not cont est t he evi dence of conspi r acy- wi de dr ug

quant i t y - - t he amount t hat sets t he st at ut or y maxi mum f or

Appr endi pur poses. I d. at 66 & n. 58. We t her ef or e or der ed t hat

-5-


6/104

"on r emand f or r e- sent enci ng t he appr opr i at e st at ut or y maxi mumwi l l

be l i f e i mpr i sonment as st at ed i n 841( b) ( 1) ( A) . " I d. at 66.

I n r emandi ng, we "cl ar i f [ i ed] t hat t he j ur y ver di ct of

gui l t y di d not det er mi ne t he amount of dr ugs at t r i but ed t o each

def endant , " i d. at 64 n. 56, whi ch was necessary f or sent enci ng

under t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes. Cooper at i ng wi t nesses had

t est i f i ed about dr ug quant i t y, and, at sent enci ng, def endant s had

cal l ed i nt o quest i on t he credi bi l i t y of t hose wi t nesses. I d. We

expl ai ned t hat t he di st r i ct cour t had t o make credi bi l i t y

det er mi nat i ons i n or der t o cal cul at e i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t y,

and we made cl ear t hat " [ a] ny concl usi on as t o i ndi vi dual dr ug

quant i t y shoul d be based on r evi ew of t he ent i r e r ecor d. " I d. We

al so obser ved t hat a number of t he Pr esent ence Report s ( "PSRs" )

cont ai ned t he "def ect " of not i ncl udi ng "f i ndi ngs as t o t he

quant i t i es or t ypes of dr ugs at t r i but abl e t o t he i ndi vi dual

def endant s. " I d. at 63.

Pi zar r o and hi s co- appel l ant s had al so ar gued t hat t he

successor j udge r esponsi bl e f or t he i ni t i al sent enci ng had not

adequat el y f ami l i ar i zed hi msel f wi t h t he vol umi nous recor d. We

hel d t hat a r epl acement j udge coul d become suf f i ci ent l y f ami l i ar

wi t h t he r ecor d t o assess cr edi bi l i t y, but we decl i ned t o anal yze

t he sent enci ng j udge' s f ami l i ar i t y because we wer e vacat i ng t he

sentences on i ndependent Booker gr ounds. Casas, 425 F. 3d at 56- 57.

-6-


7/104

B. Second Sentencing and Appeal

I n 2006, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound Pi zar r o r esponsi bl e f or

more t han 4, 200 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne. The cour t i mposed a t wo-

l evel f i r ear menhancement and a t wo- l evel enhancement f or Pi zar r o' s

l eader shi p r ol e i n t he of f ense. The cour t r esent enced Pi zar r o t o

360 mont hs ( 30 year s) i n pr i son. Pi zar r o agai n appeal ed, and we

vacat ed hi s sent ence f or a second t i me because the di st r i ct cour t

had not anal yzed wi t ness cr edi bi l i t y i n cal cul at i ng t he dr ug

quant i t y i n t he conspi r acy f or eseeabl e t o Pi zar r o. Uni t ed

St at es v. Cor r ey, 570 F. 3d 373, 378- 82 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . We or der ed

t he di st r i ct cour t on r emand t o make i ndependent cr edi bi l i t y

assessment s as necessar y t o r esol ve t he f act s i n di sput e. I d. at

379- 82, 400, 402.

We al so f ound that Pi zar r o' s PSR had t he same pr obl emat i c

l ack of suppor t t hat , on Pi zar r o' s f i r st appeal , we had

speci f i cal l y not ed i n t he PSRs of sever al of Pi zar r o' s co-

appel l ant s. I d. at 398- 400. Ther ef or e, we or der ed t he Pr obat i on

Of f i ce t o pr ovi de Pi zar r o wi t h a pr oper PSR t hat i dent i f i ed

speci f i c dr ug quant i t i es at t r i but abl e t o hi m, "i ncl ude[ d]

r ef er ences t o t he t r i al r ecor d" t hat suppor t ed t hose dr ug

quant i t i es, and "i dent i f i e[ d] t he t r i al t r anscr i pt s whi ch

suppor t [ ed] any concl usi on t hat he possessed weapons or t hat weapon

possessi on by coconspi r at or s was f or eseeabl e t o hi m. " I d. at 384,

-7-


8/104

401. 4 We f ur t her order ed t hat " Pi zar r o shoul d have a r eal

oppor t uni t y t o chal l enge [an] i nf er ence [ t hat he coul d f or esee t he

use of weapons] by ar gui ng t he quest i on of f or eseeabi l i t y t o a

f act - f i nder wi l l i ng t o consi der hi s ar gument s, " and we l ef t

Pi zar r o' s chal l enge t o a l eader shi p enhancement , a f act - speci f i c

i ssue, t o be r esol ved on r emand. I d. at 401.

C. Third Sentencing and Appeal

Pi zar r o' s case was r eassi gned f or a second t i me t o a

di f f er ent di st r i ct cour t j udge because the f or mer sent enci ng j udge

had r et i r ed. On May 15, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound Pi zar r o

r esponsi bl e f or i n excess of 150 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne and

r esent enced hi m under 841( b) ( 1) ( A) t o 280 mont hs ( 23 1/ 3 year s)

of i mpr i sonment as t o each count t o be ser ved concur r ent l y.

Pi zar r o now appeal s f or a t hi r d t i me, maki ng numerous ar gument s,

i ncl udi ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed an Al l eyne er r or by

appl yi ng a mandatory mi ni mum sent ence wi t hout t he r equi si t e dr ug

quant i t y f i ndi ngs by t he j ur y. Not abl y, t hat argument chal l enges

t he convi ct i ons f or t he aggr avat ed of f enses wi t h enhanced dr ug

4Pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 32( c) , t hepr obat i on of f i cer gener al l y must conduct a pr esent encei nvest i gat i on and submi t a r epor t t o t he cour t bef or e i t i mposes a

sent ence. Rul e 32( e) pr ovi des t hat t he Pr obat i on Of f i ce mustpr ovi de t he PSR t o t he def endant , t he def endant ' s at t or ney, and anat t or ney f or t he gover nment at l east t hi r t y- f i ve days bef or e t hesent enci ng, and Rul e 32( f ) pr ovi des t he pr ocedur es f or t he par t i es'obj ect i ons t o t he PSR. The sent enci ng cour t t hen exami nes t he PSRand the obj ect i ons t o t he PSR when deci di ng the pr oper sent ence andconsi der i ng t he r equi si t e f act or s f or t hat sent ence, such as t hecredi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons her e.

-8-


9/104

quant i t i es under 841( b) ( 1) ( A) . He al so mai nt ai ns t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed mul t i pl e sent enci ng er r or s, some of whi ch

r esul t ed f r omi t s f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h our r emand i nst r uct i ons i n

Casas and Cor r ey.

II.

We f i r st anal yze t he cl ai m of Al l eyne er r or r el at ed t o

Pi zar r o' s convi cti ons.

A. The Alleyne Rule

I n Al l eyne, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat "any f act t hat

i ncr eases t he mandat or y mi ni mum i s an ' el ement ' t hat must be

submi t t ed t o t he j ur y. " Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at 2155. Ther ef or e,

a di st r i ct cour t er r s by appl yi ng a st at ut or y mandat or y mi ni mumas

t he sent enci ng st ar t i ng poi nt wi t hout a j ur y f i ndi ng on t he f act

t hat t r i ggers t hat mi ni mum. The Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat such a

r ul e was r equi r ed by the Appr endi pr i nci pl e t hat " [ a] ny f act t hat ,

by l aw, i ncr eases t he penal t y f or a cr i me i s an ' el ement ' t hat must

be submi t t ed t o t he j ur y and f ound beyond a r easonabl e doubt . "

Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at 2155 ( ci t i ng Appr endi , 530 U. S. at 483 n. 10,

490) . I n Al l eyne, t he Supr eme Cour t expr essl y over r ul ed i t s pr i or

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

j ury di d not need t o f i nd a f act t hat i ncr eases t he mandat or y

mi ni mum. Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at 2155. The government pr oper l y

concedes t hat Al l eyne er r or occur r ed wi t h r espect t o bot h t he

conspi r acy and possessi on count s.

-9-


10/104

B. The Application of Alleyne to this Appeal

The Supreme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Al l eyne appl i es t o any

case pendi ng on di r ect appeal at t he t i me Al l eyne was deci ded. See

Gr i f f i t h v. Kent ucky, 479 U. S. 314, 328 ( 1987) ( " [ A] new r ul e f or

t he conduct of cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons i s t o be appl i ed r et r oact i vel y

t o al l cases . . . pendi ng on di r ect r evi ew or not yet f i nal , wi t h

no except i on f or cases i n whi ch t he new r ul e const i t ut es a ' cl ear

br eak' wi t h t he past . " ) . I n Rami r ez- Bur gos v. Uni t ed St at es, 313

F. 3d 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) , we hel d t hat a new Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent

- - J ones v. Uni t ed St at es, 526 U. S. 227 ( 1999) - - appl i ed

r et r oact i vel y t o Rami r ez' s case. Rami r ez- Bur gos, 313 F. 3d at 29.

We had pr evi ousl y af f i r med Rami r ez' s convi ct i ons, vacat ed hi s

sent ence, and r emanded t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or r esent enci ng. I d.

at 27. Af t er Rami r ez was r esent enced and one day af t er he f i l ed

hi s r epl y br i ef i n hi s second appeal , t he Supr eme Cour t deci ded

J ones. I d. at 28. Ci t i ng Gr i f f i t h, we hel d t hat Rami r ez coul d

br i ng a new cl ai m of j ur y- i nst r uct i on er r or under J ones because

Rami r ez' s case was st i l l on di r ect appeal at t he t i me J ones was

deci ded. I d. at 29 ( ci t i ng Gr i f f i t h, 479 U. S. at 328) . See al so

Berman v. Uni t ed St ates, 302 U. S. 211, 212 ( 1937) ( "Fi nal j udgment

i n a cr i mi nal case means sent ence. The sent ence i s t he

j udgment . " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Dodson, 291 F. 3d 268, 275- 76 ( 4th

Ci r . 2002) ( hol di ng t hat wher e cour t of appeal s af f i r ms convi ct i ons

-10-


11/104

but vacat es sent ence and r emands f or r esent enci ng on any count ,

j udgment of convi ct i on i s not f i nal as t o al l counts) .

Al l eyne was deci ded i n 2013 af t er we had t wi ce vacated

Pi zar r o' s sent ence and r emanded f or r esent enci ng, and af t er Pi zar r o

had f i l ed hi s openi ng br i ef i n t hi s t hi r d appeal . The f act t hat

t he Supr eme Cour t deni ed Pi zar r o' s pet i t i on f or a wr i t of

cer t i or ar i af t er hi s f i r st appeal , Pi zar r o- Mor al es v. Uni t ed

St at es, 546 U. S. 1199 ( 2006) , does not change t he f act t hat hi s

j udgment of convi ct i on was not f i nal at t he t i me Al l eyne was

deci ded, gi ven that we had vacat ed hi s sentence and remanded f or

r esent enci ng. See Ber man, 302 U. S. at 212 ( i ndi cat i ng t hat a

j udgment of convi ct i on woul d not be f i nal i f t he sent ence wer e

vacat ed) ; see al so Mer cer v. Ther i ot , 377 U. S. 152, 153 ( 1964) ( per

cur i am) ( hol di ng " i t i s set t l ed t hat [ t he Supr eme Cour t ] may

consi der quest i ons r ai sed on t he f i r st appeal [ af t er whi ch t he

Cour t deni ed a pet i t i on f or a wr i t of cer t i or ar i ] , as wel l as t hose

t hat were bef ore t he cour t of appeal s upon t he second appeal , "

af t er whi ch t he Cour t gr ant ed a pet i t i on f or a wr i t of cer t i or ar i

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; Dodson, 291 F. 3d at 276 n. 3

( ci t i ng Mer cer f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat f ol l owi ng a second di r ect

appeal br ought af t er a resent enci ng hear i ng or der ed by t he cour t of

appeal s i n a cr i mi nal def endant ' s f i r st di r ect appeal , t he

def endant can pet i t i on t he Supr eme Cour t f or cer t i or ar i as t o ever y

-11-


12/104

i ssue, i ncl udi ng t hose t he cour t of appeal s deni ed i n hi s f i r st

appeal ) .

Ther ef or e, as t he gover nment r ecogni zes i n i t s

suppl ement al br i ef , 5 Pi zar r o' s case was pendi ng on di r ect appeal at

t he t i me that t he Supr eme Cour t handed down Al l eyne, and Pi zar r o

can now chal l enge hi s convi ct i ons under t he new r ul e announced i n

Al l eyne. See Rami r ez- Bur gos, 313 F. 3d at 29.

C. The Alleyne Errors Here

Bef or e expl ai ni ng t he Al l eyne er r or s t hat t he gover nment

concedes, we must f i r st addr ess t he gover nment ' s cl ai mt hat Pi zar r o

may have wai ved hi s Al l eyne argument because of t he way he

conduct ed t hi s appeal . The gover nment t akes t he posi t i on t hat

" [ w] hen Pi zar r o f i l ed hi s appel l at e br i ef on Febr uar y 13, 2013, he

had t he oppor t uni t y but f ai l ed t o r ai se on appeal t he cl ai m t hat

hi s sent ence was i mposed i n vi ol at i on of Appr endi v. New J ersey,

530 U. S. 466 ( 2000) , si nce t he 10- year mandatory mi ni mumwas based

on t he cour t ' s f i ndi ngs as t o dr ug quant i t y. " However , t he

gover nment i s si mpl y wr ong. Pi zar r o di d r ai se hi s Al l eyne cl ai mi n

hi s openi ng br i ef by ar gui ng t hat "a conspi r acy- wi de, j udi ci al

det er mi nat i on of quant i t y by a pr eponder ance [ of t he evi dence] f or

t he pur pose of est abl i shi ng a st at ut or y sent enci ng r ange i n a 21

U. S. C. 846 conspi r acy i s er r or . " He concl uded t hat " af t er

5 Dur i ng oral argument , we i nst r uct ed t he government andPi zar r o t o f i l e suppl ement al br i ef s on t he Al l eyne i ssue.

-12-


13/104

Appr endi , a j ur y shoul d be requi r ed t o make an i ndi vi dual

determi nat i on of dr ug quant i t y beyond a r easonabl e doubt t o

est abl i sh a st at ut or y sent enci ng r ange i n a 21 U. S. C. 846

conspi r acy. " The ar gument t hat t he "st at ut or y sent enci ng r ange"

was appl i ed i n er r or i nescapabl y encompassed an Al l eyne cl ai m

r egardi ng t he mandat or y mi ni mum. As t he government says he shoul d

have done, Pi zar r o ci t ed Appr endi t o suppor t t hi s ar gument . Hence,

under t he st andar d set out by t he gover nment i t sel f , Pi zar r o r ai sed

hi s Al l eyne cl ai m on appeal i n hi s openi ng br i ef . 6

Mor eover , i n hi s suppl ement al br i ef f i l ed af t er or al

ar gument , Pi zar r o speci f i cal l y char act er i zes hi s cl ai mas one under

Al l eyne. Under our precedent on Appr endi , Pi zar r o' s suppl ement al

br i ef al one woul d have been suf f i ci ent t o r ai se t he Al l eyne cl ai m.

See Uni t ed St at es v. LaFr eni er e, 236 F. 3d 41, 48 ( 1st Ci r . 2001)

( f i ndi ng t hat Appr endi i ssue was "pr oper l y submi t t ed f or

di sposi t i on" wher e "we extended an i nvi t at i on t o LaFreni er e and t he

gover nment t o suppl ement t hei r br i ef s addr essi ng t he possi bl e

r el evance of Appr endi " ) . Hence, we r ej ect t he gover nment ' s

posi t i on i n i t s suppl ement al br i ef t hat Pi zar r o' s "Al l eyne cl ai mi s

pot ent i al l y wai ved" on appeal .

Under Appr endi and now Al l eyne, each of t he subsect i ons

of 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) , wi t h i t s associ at ed dr ug quant i t i es and

6 As t he gover nment i t sel f i mpl i ci t l y r ecogni zes, Pi zar r ocoul d not have ci t ed Al l eyne as aut hor i t y i n hi s openi ng br i efbecause i t was f i l ed bef or e Al l eyne was deci ded.

-13-


14/104

sent enci ng r anges, i s a separate cr i me. I ndeed, t he Supr eme Cour t

has so hel d. Ci t i ng Al l eyne and Appr endi , t he Supr eme Cour t i n

Bur r age v. Uni t ed St at es, 134 S. Ct . 881 ( 2014) , expl ai ned t hat

because an aggr avat i ng el ement i n 841( b) ( 1) - - t hat deat h r esul t s

f r om t he use of t he di st r i but ed dr ug - - " i ncr eased t he mi ni mumand

maxi mum sent ences t o whi ch [ t he def endant ] was exposed, i t i s an

el ement t hat must be submi t t ed t o t he j ur y and f ound beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . " Bur r age, 134 S. Ct . at 887 ( ci t i ng Al l eyne, 133

S. Ct . at 2162- 63; Appr endi , 530 U. S. at 490) . 7 Bur r age concl uded

t hat a vi ol at i on of 841( a) ( 1) , wi t hout a f i ndi ng on t he "deat h

r esul t s" aggr avat i ng el ement , i s a l esser - i ncl uded of f ense of t he

aggr avat ed of f ense that i ncl udes t he "deat h r esul t s" el ement under

841( b) ( 1) . 134 S. Ct . at 887 n. 3. See al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Pena, 742 F. 3d 508, 517, 519 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( same) . J ust as t he

"deat h r esul t s" el ement makes t he di st r i but i on of dr ugs wher e deat h

r esul t s a separ at e cr i me f r om t he di st r i but i on of dr ugs wi t hout a

deat h r esul t i ng, dr ug quant i t y i n 841( b) ( 1) cr eat es aggr avat ed

conspi r acy and possessi on of f enses.

Under Al l eyne, t he oper at i ve quest i on f or a dr ug

conspi r acy i s whet her i t i s t he i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t y t hat

i s a " f act t hat i ncr eases t he mandat or y mi ni mum" sent ence, Al l eyne,

133 S. Ct . at 2155. We have al r eady answered t hat quest i on i n

Uni t ed St at es v. Col n- Sol s, 354 F. 3d 101 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) , wher e

7 Li ke t he aggr avat i ng el ement of dr ug quant i t y, "deat hr esul t s" i s a di st i nct aggr avat i ng el ement i n 841( b) ( 1) .

-14-


15/104

we hel d t hat a mandatory mi ni mum"i s made potent i al l y avai l abl e by

a f i ndi ng t hat t he conspi r acy as a whol e handl ed ( or at l east

cont empl ated) t he necessary t r i gger i ng amount , " but a mandatory

mi ni mum "cannot be appl i ed i n [ a par t i cul ar coconspi r at or ' s] case

wi t hout an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng t hat t he t r i gger i ng amount was

at t r i but abl e t o, or f or eseeabl e by, hi m. " I d. at 103. 8 Col n-

Sol s was deci ded pr i or t o Al l eyne; t her ef or e, af t er Col n- Sol s,

t hat i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng was made by t he sent enci ng j udge.

However , f ol l owi ng t he Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Al l eyne, t he

dr ug quant i t y t hat t r i gger s t he mandat or y mi ni mum f or a 21 U. S. C.

846 conspi r acy, l i ke t he dr ug quant i t y t hat t r i gger s t he

st atut ory maxi mum under Appr endi , must now be f ound by a j ur y

beyond a r easonabl e doubt . 9 But , t hose quant i t i es ser ve di f f er ent

pur poses: whi l e i t i s the conspi r acy- wi de quant i t y t hat gover ns

t he st at ut ory maxi mum, Casas, 425 F. 3d at 66 n. 58, i t i s t he

i ndi vi dual i zed quant i t y, i . e. , t he quant i t y t hat i s f or eseeabl e t o

8 Casas i t sel f r ecogni zed t hi s pr i nci pl e: "I n t he absence ofsuch an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng, t he dr ug quant i t y at t r i but abl e t ot he conspi r acy as a whol e cannot aut omat i cal l y be shi f t ed t o thedef endant . " Casas, 425 F. 3d at 57- 58 ( quot i ng Col n- Sol s, 354F. 3d at 103) .

9

I n Uni t ed St at es v. Pal adi n, 748 F. 3d 438 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ,t he def endant al so made the ar gument t hat , af t er Al l eyne, Col n-Sol s r equi r ed t he j ur y t o f i nd an i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t yt r i gger i ng a mandatory mi ni mum, but i t was unnecessary f or us t odeci de t he i ssue i n t hat case. See i d. at 452- 53 ( "Pal adi n ur gesa col l ect i ve r eadi ng of Col n- Sol s and Al l eyne t o r equi r e t hat t hej ury make an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng as t o t he quant i t y of drugsat t r i but abl e t o a par t i cul ar def endant . ") .

-15-


16/104

t he def endant , t hat t r i gger s t he mandat or y mi ni mum, Col n- Sol s,

354 F. 3d at 103.

Havi ng been i ndi ct ed f or conspi r i ng t o possess wi t h

i nt ent t o di st r i but e 1. 4 ki l ogr ams of her oi n and 9, 445 ki l ogr ams of

cocai ne, Pi zar r o most r ecent l y was sent enced on t he conspi r acy

count t o 23 1/ 3 year s i n pr i son under 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) ,

whi ch appl i es a mandat or y mi ni mum sent ence of t en year s

i mpr i sonment . Pi zar r o i s cor r ect , however , t hat t he j ur y di d not

make a f i ndi ng wi t h r espect t o t he quant i t y of dr ugs i n t he

conspi r acy f or eseeabl e t o hi m. 10 I ndeed, we have al r eady hel d t hat

t o be t he case: "We wi sh t o cl ar i f y t hat t he j ur y ver di ct of

gui l t y di d not det er mi ne t he amount of dr ugs at t r i but ed t o each

def endant . " Casas, 425 F. 3d at 65 n. 56. Ther ef or e, Al l eyne er r or

occur r ed i n Pi zar r o' s case i n t he conspi r acy convi ct i on.

Ther e was al so Al l eyne er r or i n Pi zar r o' s possess i on

convi ct i on. He was i ndi ct ed f or possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o

di st r i but e ei ght y- one ki l ogr ams of cocai ne and, as wi t h t he

conspi r acy count , was sent enced on t he possessi on count t o 23 1/ 3

year s of i mpr i sonment under 841( b) ( 1) ( A) , car r yi ng t he ten- year

mandatory mi ni mum. However , t he j ur y di d not make t he r equi si t e

f i ndi ng of dr ug quant i t y f or t hat sent ence. I n f act , t he j ur y was

i nst r uct ed t hat quant i t y was i r r el evant : "The Uni t ed St at es i s not

10 Pi zar r o' s t r i al occur r ed year s bef or e t he Supr eme Cour tdeci ded Al l eyne; hence, t here was no pr ecedent at t he t i mer equi r i ng t he j ur y t o make t he i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ngon t he conspi r acy count .

-16-


17/104

r equi r ed t o pr ove t hat t he amount or quant i t y was as char ged i n t he

i ndi ct ment . I t need onl y pr ove beyond r easonabl e doubt t hat t her e

was a measurabl e amount of t he cont r ol l ed subst ance. "11

Hencef ort h, under Al l eyne and Appr endi , t he j ur y must

f i nd t he mandat or y- mi ni mum and st at ut or y- maxi mum t r i gger i ng

el ement s. I n a dr ug conspi r acy or possessi on convi ct i on wi t h a

mandat ory mi ni mumand st at utory maxi mumbased on drug quant i t y, t he

j ury must f i nd t hose r equi si t e drug quant i t i es. 12 For exampl e, f or

a cocai ne conspi r acy convi ct i on under 841( b) ( 1) ( A) , whi ch i mposes

a mandatory mi ni mum of t en years and a st atut ory maxi mum of l i f e

i mpr i sonment , t he j ur y must now f i nd t hat t he def endant ( 1)

conspi r ed, 846; ( 2) knowi ngl y or i nt ent i onal l y to di st r i but e

11 Agai n, t hi s i nst r uct i on r ef l ected t he st at e of t he l aw att hat t i me.

12On the ot her hand, wher e the mandat ory mi ni mumand st at utorymaxi mumdo not depend on dr ug quant i t y, t he cour t , wi t hout any j ur yf i ndi ng, may make i t s own dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ngs f or sent enci ngpur poses. For exampl e, dur i ng sent enci ng f or a convi ct i on under 841( b) ( 1) ( C) , wher e t he i ndi ct ment had not speci f i ed t he quant i t yof cocai ne or her oi n or onl y char ged smal l amount s, a di st r i ctcour t may make an i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ng f or aconspi r acy char ge ( and a dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ng f or a possessi oncharge) by a pr eponderance of t he evi dence t o determi ne t headvi sor y Gui del i nes sent ence. See Ram r ez- Negr n, 751 F. 3d at 48-49 ( r ecogni zi ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t may make dr ug quant i t yf i ndi ngs by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t o cal cul at e an

advi sor y Gui del i nes sent ence f or a 841( b) ( 1) ( C) of f ense) . Af t ercal cul at i ng t hat advi sor y Gui del i nes sent ence, t he di st r i ct cour tmust t hen use i t s di scr et i on t o i mpose a sent ence wi t hi n t hest at ut or y sent enci ng r ange mandat ed by t he j ur y' s ver di ct . I f , f ora convi ct i on under 841( b) ( 1) ( C) , t he cour t det er mi nes t hat t headvi sory Gui del i nes sent ence i s great er t han t went y year s, 841( b) ( 1) ( C) ' s s t at ut or y t went y- year maxi mum never t hel ess capsany sent ence t hat t he di st r i ct cour t can gi ve.

-17-


18/104

cocai ne, 841( a) ( 1) ; ( 3) i n a conspi r acy t hat i nvol ved a t ot al of

f i ve ki l ogr ams or mor e of cocai ne, 841( b) ( 1) ( A) ; Appr endi , 530

U. S. at 490; ( 4) wher e at l east f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne wer e

f or eseeabl e t o t he def endant , 841( b) ( 1) ( A) ; Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct .

at 2155; Col n- Sol s, 354 F. 3d at 103. 13 For a possessi on

convi ct i on under 841( b) ( 1) ( A) , a cr i me t hat by i t s nat ur e onl y

assesses t he conduct of an i ndi vi dual , r at her t han t he conduct of

coconspi r at or s, t he j ur y must f i nd t hat t he def endant ( 1)

knowi ngl y or i nt ent i onal l y possessed wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e,

841( a) ( 1) ; ( 2) at l east f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne,

841( b) ( 1) ( A) ; Appr endi , 530 U. S. at 490; Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at

2155. 14

13 I n t he case of a cocai ne conspi r acy, i f t he j ur y makes t her equi r ed t hr eshol d f i ndi ngs of at l east f i ve ki l ogr ams, but doesnot i ndi cat e a speci f i c quant i t y, and t he di st r i ct cour t chooses t osentence above t he mandat or y mi ni mum, t he cour t must make ani ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ng by a pr eponder ance of t heevi dence. The cour t woul d have t o f i nd t he speci f i c quant i t y ofcocai ne f oreseeabl e t o t he def endant t o determi ne t he recommendedsent ence under t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes. See Col n- Sol s, 354F. 3d at 103. That f act - f i ndi ng may r equi r e cr edi bi l i t y assessment sf or any wi t nesses on whose t est i mony t he cour t r el i es. See Cor r ey,570 F. 3d at 380- 81. I n i t s di scret i on, t he cour t wi l l t hen i mposea sent ence wi t hi n t he st at ut or y r ange.

14

As wi t h a conspi r acy convi ct i on, i f t he j ur y makes ther equi r ed t hr eshol d f i ndi ng of at l east f i ve ki l ogr ams f or a cocai nepossessi on count , but does not i ndi cat e a speci f i c quant i t y, andt he di st r i ct cour t chooses t o sent ence above t he mandat ory mi ni mum,i t must make a dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ng by a pr eponderance of t heevi dence t o det ermi ne the recommended sentence under t heGui del i nes. The cour t wi l l t hen use i t s di scr et i on t o i mpose asent ence wi t hi n t he st at ut or y r ange.

-18-


19/104

D. The Nature of Alleyne Error

Ther e ar e di f f er ent f or ms of Al l eyne er r or t hat can l ead

t o a sent ence, i mposed af t er a j ur y t r i al , i nvol vi ng t he i mpr oper

appl i cat i on of a mandat or y mi ni mum wi t hout t he requi si t e j ur y

f i ndi ng. One f or m of Al l eyne er r or i s anal yzed as a t r i al er r or ,

anot her as a sent enci ng er r or . The nat ur e of t he Al l eyne er r or

af f ect s t he remedy t hat mi ght be avai l abl e to a def endant .

I n Al l eyne i t sel f , t he er r or was of t he sent enci ng

var i et y. The j ur y ver di ct f or m i n Al l eyne had i ncl uded t he

appl i cabl e mi ni mum- t r i gger i ng el ement i n t hat case ( br andi shi ng of

a f i r ear m) as an opt i onal f i ndi ng t hat t he j ur y shoul d consi der .

The j ury i nst ead " i ndi cat ed on t he ver di ct f or m t hat Al l eyne had

' [ u] sed or car r i ed a f i r ear m dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a cr i me of

vi ol ence, ' but di d not i ndi cat e a f i ndi ng t hat t he f i r ear m was

' [ b] r andi shed. ' " Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at 2156. The t r i al cour t ,

however , appl i ed t he mandat ory mi ni mumbased on i t s own f i ndi ng by

a pr eponderance of t he evi dence t hat t he def endant had br andi shed

t he weapon. I d. Thus, t he er r or i n Al l eyne was conf i ned t o

sent enci ng, wher e the di st r i ct cour t made a f i ndi ng on an

aggr avat i ng el ement t hat was present ed t o and r ej ect ed by t he j ur y.

I n essence, t he t r i al j udge sent enced Al l eyne f or "a separ at e,

aggr avat ed of f ense, " i d. at 2162, t hat t he j ur y had i t sel f deci ded

not t o f i nd beyond a r easonabl e doubt . See, e. g. , Pr i ce v.

Geor gi a, 398 U. S. 323, 328- 29 (1970) ( hol di ng that wher e j ur y was

-19-


20/104

i nst r uct ed on bot h a gr eat er of f ense and l esser - i ncl uded of f ense

and t he j ur y convi ct ed on t he l esser - i ncl uded of f ense, t he doubl e

j eopar dy provi si on prohi bi t ed r et r i al on t he great er of f ense) .

Ther ef or e, t he Supreme Court vacat ed Al l eyne' s sent ence and

"r emand[ ed] f or r esent enci ng consi st ent wi t h t he j ur y' s ver di ct , "

i d. at 2164, whi ch woul d mean that Al l eyne shoul d onl y be sent enced

f or t he of f ense of usi ng or car r yi ng a f i r ear m i n r el at i on t o a

cr i me of vi ol ence.

On t he ot her hand, where a def endant was i ndi ct ed f or and

convi ct ed of an aggr avat ed of f ense and t he j ur y was not i nst r uct ed

on t he el ement t r i gger i ng the st atut ory mandatory mi ni mumsent ence,

but t hat mi ni mum was never t hel ess appl i ed at sent enci ng, t he

Al l eyne er r or i s anal yzed as an i nst r uct i onal er r or , occur r i ng at

t r i al . The Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Washi ngt on v. Recuenco, 548

U. S. 212 ( 2006) , di ct at es t hi s concl usi on. Ther e, t he j ur y had

f ound t he def endant gui l t y of assaul t whi l e ar med wi t h a deadl y

weapon, but t he j udge sent enced the def endant , over hi s obj ect i on,

f or assaul t whi l e ar med wi t h a f i r ear m, a separ at e, aggr avat ed

of f ense subj ect t o a gr eat er st at ut or y maxi mum sent ence. See i d.

at 215- 216, 225. Unl i ke i n Al l eyne, t he Recuenco j ur y had not been

gi ven t he opt i on of f i ndi ng t he aggr avat i ng el ement , i . e. , t hat t he

deadl y weapon was a f i r ear m. I d. The t r i al cour t , t her ef or e,

commi t t ed Appr endi er r or by i mposi ng a mandatory st atut ory

-20-


21/104

sent enci ng enhancement wi t hout a j ur y f i ndi ng on t he r equi si t e

aggr avat i ng el ement of a f i r ear m. 15

The Supreme Cour t hel d t hat t he " [ f ] ai l ure t o submi t a

sent enci ng f act or t o the j ur y, " whi ch i ncreases t he stat ut or y

maxi mum, i . e. , t he Appr endi er r or , was " i ndi st i ngui shabl e" f r omt he

" f ai l ur e to submi t an el ement t o t he j ur y" t hat occur r ed i n Neder

v. Uni t ed St at es, 527 U. S. 1 ( 1999) . 16 Recuenco, 548 U. S. at 220,

222. I n Neder , t he di st r i ct cour t err ed by r ef usi ng t o i nst r uct

t he j ur y on "mat er i al i t y" as an el ement of t ax f r aud. Neder , 527

U. S. at 4. Recuenco expl ai ned t hat " [ b] ecause Neder ' s j ur y di d not

f i nd hi m gui l t y of each of t he el ement s of t he of f enses wi t h whi ch

he was char ged, i t s ver di ct i s no mor e f ai r l y descr i bed as a

compl et e f i ndi ng of gui l t of t he cr i mes f or whi ch t he def endant was

sent enced t han i s t he ver di ct her e. " Recuenco, 548 U. S. at 221.

Hence, i n a case where t he j ur y was not i nst r uct ed on an

15 The Supr eme Cour t char act er i zed t he Appr endi er r or i nRecuenco as Bl akel y er r or . Recuenco, 548 U. S. at 216. As t heCour t expl ai ned, " I n Bl akel y [v. Washi ngt on, 542 U. S. 296 ( 2004) ] ,we cl ar i f i ed t hat ' t he "st at ut or y maxi mum" f or Appr endi pur poses i st he maxi mum sentence a j udge may i mpose sol el y on t he basi s of t hef act s r ef l ect ed i n t he j ur y ver di ct or admi t t ed by t he def endant . ' "Recuenco, 548 U. S. at 216 ( quot i ng Bl akel y, 542 U. S. at 303) .

16 The el ement t hat i ncr eased t he st atut ory maxi mumi n Recuencoi s more pr oper l y t ermed an "aggr avat i ng el ement " t han a "sent enci ng

f act or . " The Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned i n Appr endi t hat t he t er m"sent enci ng f act or " "appr opr i at el y descr i bes a ci r cumst ance, whi chmay be ei t her aggr avat i ng or mi t i gat i ng i n char act er , t hat suppor t sa speci f i c sent ence wi t hi n t he range aut hor i zed by t he j ur y' sf i ndi ng t hat t he def endant i s gui l t y of a par t i cul ar of f ense. "Appr endi , 530 U. S. at 494 n. 19. Hence, we r ef er t o a f act or t hati ncr eases t he st at ut or y maxi mum or mi ni mum as an "aggr avat i ngel ement , " as opposed t o a "sent enci ng f act or . "

-21-


22/104

aggr avat i ng el ement and t hus necessar i l y di d not make a f i ndi ng on

t hat el ement , t he Supr eme Cour t expl i ci t l y equated t he Appr endi

er r or of i mposi ng t hat el ement ' s associ at ed st at ut or y sent enci ng

enhancement wi t h t he Neder f ai l ur e t o i nst r uct on an el ement of t he

of f ense. Li kewi se, even bef ore t he Supr eme Cour t deci ded Recuenco,

we t oo had anal yzed Appr endi er r or as a f ai l ur e t o i nst r uct t he

j ury. See, e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. Prez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d 1, 17 ( 1st

Ci r . 2003) ( anal yzi ng an Appr endi er r or i n a dr ug conspi r acy case

as " t he f ai l ur e to submi t t he necessary dr ug t ype and quant i t y

quest i ons t o t he j ur y") .

J ust as an Appr endi er r or can r esul t f r omt he f ai l ure t o

i nst r uct on t he maxi mum- t r i gger i ng el ement , an Al l eyne er r or can

r esul t f r om t he f ai l ur e t o i nst r uct on t he mi ni mum- t r i gger i ng

el ement . I ndeed, t he Al l eyne er r or s i n Pi zar r o' s case r esul t ed

f r om such i nst r uct i onal omi ssi ons. The di st r i ct cour t di d not

i nst r uct t he j ur y on t he i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t y el ement of

t he conspi r acy char ge or t he dr ug quant i t y el ement of t he

possessi on char ge. Hence, an i nst r uct i onal Al l eyne er r or , l i ke an

i nst r uct i onal Appr endi er r or , i s pr oper l y r evi ewed under t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s j ur i spr udence on t he f ai l ur e t o i nst r uct on an

el ement of t he cr i me.

The di st i nct i on bet ween t he Al l eyne sent enci ng er r or t hat

occur r ed i n Al l eyne i t sel f and t he Al l eyne i nst r uct i onal er r or s

t hat we have her e af f ect s t he avai l abi l i t y of har ml ess or pl ai n

-22-


23/104

er r or r evi ew. I n a case wher e t he t r i al cour t made a f i ndi ng on an

aggr avat i ng el ement t hat was r ej ect ed by t he j ur y ( as i n

Al l eyne i t sel f ) , t he st andar d of r evi ew makes no di f f er ence. Af t er

Appr endi and Al l eyne, i f a sent enci ng cour t i mposes a sent ence f or

an aggr avat ed cr i me t hat t he j ur y has consi der ed and r ej ect ed, t he

err or wi l l al ways be pl ai n and such an aggr avated sent ence must

necessar i l y be vacat ed. On t he ot her hand, wher e t he cour t f ai l ed

t o i nst r uct t he j ur y on an aggr avat i ng el ement ( as i n Recuenco) ,

t he j ur y never had a chance t o make a f i ndi ng on t hat el ement . I n

such a si t uat i on, ei t her har ml ess or pl ai n er r or r evi ew ( dependi ng

on whet her t he er r or was preserved) i s appr opr i at e to deter mi ne

whether a r easonabl e j ur y necessar i l y woul d have f ound t he

aggr avat i ng el ement beyond a r easonabl e doubt . See Uni t ed States

v. Del gado- Mar r er o, 744 F. 3d 167, 184 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ; cf . Uni t ed

St at es v. Cot t on, 535 U. S. 625, 631- 34 ( 2002) ( appl yi ng pl ai n er r or

r evi ew t o an unpr eserved Appr endi er r or ) . 17

17 The wr i t i ng j udge bel i eves t hat , because each subsect i on of 841( b) ( 1) def i nes a separ at e cr i me, Bur r age, 134 S. Ct . at 887 &n. 3, a cour t may not sol ve a non- har ml ess ( or pl ai n) Al l eynei nst r uct i onal er r or by t aki ng a mandat or y mi ni mum ( or t he absenceof one) f r om one subsect i on and a st at ut or y maxi mum f r om anot her .I n ot her wor ds, i f t he cour t had f ound t he Al l eyne er r or her e non-har ml ess, t he wr i t i ng j udge bel i eves t he new sent enci ng r ange coul d

not have been zer o year s t o l i f e i mpr i sonment - - i . e. , t aki ng t heabsence of a mandat or y mi ni mum f r om 841( b) ( 1) ( C) and t hest at ut or y maxi mum of l i f e i mpr i sonment f r om 841( b) ( 1) ( A) . Heconcl udes t hat , under t he l ogi c of Bur r age, such an appr oach woul damount t o l egi sl at i ng a whol l y new cr i me and, hence, a non- harml ess( or pl ai n er r or ) f ai l ur e t o i nst r uct on t he dr ug quant i t y el ement swoul d r equi r e vacat i ng t he conspi r acy and possessi on convi ct i onsunder 841( b) ( 1) ( A) car r yi ng the mandatory mi ni ma.

-23-


24/104

E. Pizarro's Preservation of the Alleyne Error at Sentencing

Al t hough i nst r uct i onal er r or s or di nar i l y must be

pr eser ved at t he t i me of t r i al , our pr ecedent hol ds t hat

i nst r uct i onal Appr endi er r or s are pr eserved even i f a def endant

does not obj ect unt i l sent enci ng. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

D az- Ar i as, 717 F. 3d 1, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . Obser vi ng t hat a par t y

has an obl i gat i on t o obj ect onl y t o somet hi ng " i ni mi cal t o hi s

cause, " we have noted t hat a def endant woul d have "no i nt erest i n

ensur i ng hi s el i gi bi l i t y f or a l onger sent ence. " Pr ez- Rui z, 353

F. 3d at 14. Mor eover , we have r ecogni zed t hat "a def endant wi l l

not know whet her t her e i s an Appr endi er r or unt i l sent enci ng, and

t hen onl y i f t he cour t consi ders a sent ence above t he maxi mum. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Nel son- Rodr i guez, 319 F. 3d 12, 47 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

Hence, we have hel d t hat a cl ai mof Appr endi er r or i s pr eserved f or

appeal i f a def endant at sent enci ng chal l enges " t he i mposi t i on or

pr oposed i mposi t i on of a t er mt hat exceeds t he appl i cabl e st at ut or y

maxi mum. " Pr ez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d at 14. I n Casas, we al so t r eat ed

Appr endi cl ai ms as preserved as l ong as t he def endant s had obj ected

at sent enci ng. Casas, 425 F. 3d at 59- 60. 18

18 At l east one member of t he panel di sagr ees wi t h our

r easoni ng i n Pr ez- Rui z, Nel son- Rodr i guez, and t hei r pr ogenyhol di ng t hat a def endant pr eserves an Appr endi cl ai m by obj ect i ngat sent enci ng. Under t hi s vi ew, Pr ez- Rui z et al . cannot sur vi vet he Supr eme Cour t ' s r ecogni t i on t hat dr ug quant i t y - - or anysent enci ng f act or - - i s an el ement of t he char ged of f ense. Ther at i onal e i s t hat , when t he i ndi ct ment char ges an enhanced of f ense,a def endant can har dl y st and by si l ent l y (and t hen l at er i nvokehar ml ess err or r evi ew) when t he i nst r uct i ons f ai l t o i ncl ude

-24-


25/104

I n i t s suppl ement al br i ef , t he gover nment cl ai ms t he

Al l eyne er r or was unpr eserved bel ow and appl i es t he pl ai n er r or

t est as par t of i t s argument . 19 As we r epor t ed i n Casas, "Pi zar r o

obj ect ed [ at hi s i ni t i al sent enci ng] t hat t he j ur y di d not make a

f i ndi ng on t he i ssue of dr ug quant i t y. When t he di st r i ct j udge

asser t ed t hat t her e was no Appr endi i ssue, Pi zar r o' s counsel

r esponded t hat ' [ w] e bel i eve, Your Honor , t hat t her e i s r oom i n

t hat r espect . ' " Casas, 425 F. 3d at 59. We observed t hat t hi s

obj ect i on "by i t s nat ur e r ai sed Appr endi concer ns, " i d. at 60 n. 48,

whi ch al so woul d have suf f i ced t o r ai se an Al l eyne cl ai m based on

t he same Si xt h Amendment r i ght t o a j ur y t r i al , see Al l eyne, 133

S. Ct . at 2163 & n. 5 ( not i ng t hat "t her e i s no pr i nci pl e or l ogi c

t o di st i ngui sh f act s t hat r ai se t he maxi mum f r om t hose t hat

i ncr ease t he mi ni mum") . Al t hough Pi zar r o di d not expl i ci t l y obj ect

on t hese gr ounds agai n at hi s most r ecent sent enci ng hear i ng ( hi s

t hi r d) , our pr ecedent suggest s t hat , assumi ng Pi zar r o di d not

abandon hi s or i gi nal obj ect i on, t he obj ect i on woul d have pr eserved

appr opr i ate ment i on of dr ug quant i t y any more t han t he def endantcoul d wi t hhol d obj ect i on t o t he omi ssi on of any ot her el ement ( suchas mens r ea i n a mur der case t hat enhances t he base l evel of f ense) .Adopt i ng t hat vi ew woul d r equi r e our cour t t o r evi si t ourpr ecedent s hol di ng ot her wi se. I n any event , as Pi zar r o' s

convi ct i on sur vi ves bot h pl ai n- er r or and har ml esser r or r evi ew, ourr esul t does not depend on whet her Pi zar r o pr eserved an obj ect i on t ot he Al l eyne er r or .

19 Even t hough Al l eyne had not been deci ded yet , i f t here hadbeen no obj ect i on bel ow, an Al l eyne cl ai mwoul d have been r evi ewedf or pl ai n er r or . See Uni t ed St at es v. Har akal y, 734 F. 3d 88, 94( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

-25-


26/104

t he Al l eyne cl ai m f or our r evi ew now. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Ami r aul t , 224 F. 3d 9, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( hol di ng t hat cl ai m was

pr eserved f or subsequent appeal by obj ect i on at or i gi nal sent enci ng

hear i ng) . We need not r esol ve whet her Pi zar r o i n f act pr eserved

hi s Al l eyne cl ai mf or t hi s appeal , however , as we can concl ude t hat

t he er r or was i n any event har ml ess. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

Sot o- Ben quez, 356 F. 3d 1, 49 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( "We have al r eady

determi ned t hat any Appr endi er r or as t o dr ug amount or t ype woul d

be har ml ess; a f or t i or i , no pl ai n er r or occur r ed. ") . We t her ef or e

pr esume, wi t hout deci di ng, t hat har ml ess er r or r evi ew appl i es her e.

F. Harmless Error Review for Instructional Errors

The Supreme Cour t addressed har ml ess er r or r evi ew f or an

omi t t ed el ement i n Neder v. Uni t ed St ates, 527 U. S. 1 ( 1999) ,

descr i bi ng t he i nqui r y as whet her i t i s "cl ear beyond a r easonabl e

doubt t hat a rat i onal j ur y woul d have f ound t he def endant gui l t y

absent t he er r or . " I d. at 18. The Cour t hel d t hat "[ i ] n t hi s

si t uat i on, wher e a r evi ewi ng cour t concl udes beyond a reasonabl e

doubt t hat t he omi t t ed el ement was uncont est ed and suppor t ed by

overwhel mi ng evi dence, such t hat t he j ur y verdi ct woul d have been

t he same absent t he er r or , t he er r oneous i nst r uct i on i s pr oper l y

f ound t o be har ml ess. " I d. at 17. The concur r ence by t he wr i t i ng

j udge asser t s t hat , based on t he Cour t ' s st at ement s i n Neder and

i t s pr i or pr ecedent , t he omi ssi on of an el ement i s har ml ess onl y

when t he r evi ewi ng cour t dr aws t wo concl usi ons beyond a r easonabl e

-26-


27/104

doubt : t he el ement i s uncont est ed, and t he el ement i s support ed by

over whel mi ng evi dence. I n t hi s case of i nst r uct i onal

Al l eyne er r or , t he concur r ence t akes t he posi t i on t hat t he omi ssi on

woul d not be harml ess i f t he def endant had asser t ed ei t her bel ow or

on appeal t hat a pr oper l y i nst r uct ed j ur y coul d have f ound i n hi s

f avor on t he omi t t ed el ement . The panel need not deci de whether

t hi s vi ew of t he l aw i s cor r ect because, i n t hi s case, we concl ude

beyond a r easonabl e doubt both t hat Pi zar r o has never cont est ed t he

omi t t ed dr ug quant i t y el ement s and t hat t hey were support ed by

over whel mi ng evi dence.

I n i t s suppl ement al br i ef , t he gover nment ar gues t hat

Pi zar r o conceded t hat he was r esponsi bl e f or at l east f i ve

ki l ogr ams of cocai ne. We do not exami ne whether Pi zar r o

af f i r mat i vel y admi t t ed t hat t hr eshol d quant i t y, however , because we

concl ude that , l i ke Neder , Pi zar r o has not cont est ed t he omi t t ed

el ement s. At hi s f i r st sent enci ng, Pi zar r o asser t ed onl y t hat t he

j ury di d not make any drug quant i t y f i ndi ngs; he di d not ar gue t hat

a cont r ar y f i ndi ng on t he el ement s was possi bl e. Mor eover ,

Pi zar r o' s argument on appeal r egar di ng t he f ai l ur e t o i nst r uct on

t he dr ug quant i t y el ement s " est abl i shes onl y t hat t her e was Al l eyne

er r or ; i t says not hi ng about whet her t hat er r or was har ml ess. " See

Uni t ed St at es v. Har akal y, 734 F. 3d 88, 95- 96 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

Fi nal l y, whi l e Pi zar r o di d make cr edi bi l i t y ar gument s at sent enci ng

and on appeal t o chal l enge t he cour t ' s dr ug quant i t y det er mi nat i on

-27-


28/104

at sent enci ng, t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat Pi zar r o' s ar gument

cal l ed i nt o quest i on anyt hi ng ot her t han t he sent enci ng cour t ' s

concl usi on t hat Pi zar r o was r esponsi bl e f or mor e t han 150 ki l ogr ams

of cocai ne. Pi zar r o di d not ar gue t hat t he j ur y t hat convi ct ed hi m

coul d have f ound hi m r esponsi bl e f or l ess t han f i ve ki l ogr ams of

cocai ne. 20 Hence, Pi zar r o di d not cont est t he omi t t ed dr ug quant i t y

el ement s.

The gover nment al so ar gues t hat overwhel mi ng evi dence

i nt r oduced at Pi zar r o' s t r i al est abl i shed t hat Pi zar r o was

r esponsi bl e f or at l east f i ve ki l ogr ams of cocai ne, t he r equi si t e

dr ug quant i t y f or 841( b) ( 1) ( A) ' s t en- year mandator y mi ni mum. A

r evi ewi ng cour t may concl ude beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat t he

omi t t ed el ement was "suppor t ed by over whel mi ng evi dence" i f t he

evi dence was of such a si gni f i cant quant i t y and qual i t y t hat i t

" i ncont r over t i bl y est abl i shes" t he el ement . Neder , 527 U. S. at 16-

17; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Bai l ey, 270 F. 3d 83, 89 ( 1st Ci r .

2001) ( f i ndi ng t hat evi dence was not "overwhel mi ng" because

"[ w] hi l e a j udge coul d per mi ssi bl y f i nd t hose f act s by a

pr eponder ance of t he evi dence, and a j ur y coul d per mi ssi bl y f i nd

t hem beyond a r easonabl e doubt , i t i s not so cl ear t hat a

r easonabl e j ur y must have f ound thembeyond a r easonabl e doubt " ) ;

Pr ez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d at 18- 19 ( si mi l ar ) . Even wher e t he

20 We do not mean to suggest t hat a cr edi bi l i t y ar gument ,expl ai ni ng how a f i ndi ng of l ess t han f i ve ki l ogr ams was possi bl e,coul d not have "cont est ed" t he omi t t ed el ement s, as t he t er m i sused i n Neder .

-28-


29/104

gover nment ' s evi dence on the omi t t ed el ement i s "st r ong, " t hat

evi dence i s not over whel mi ng i f compet i ng evi dence i s " not

i nher ent l y i ncr edi bl e. " Uni t ed St at es v. Pr i gmor e, 243 F. 3d 1, 22

( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( ci t i ng Neder , 527 U. S. at 19) .

I n t hi s case, over whel mi ng evi dence suppor t s t he

r equi si t e f i ndi ngs of at l east f i ve ki l ogr ams. The j ur y f ound

Pi zar r o gui l t y of possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cocai ne, and

Pi zar r o expl ai ned i n hi s openi ng br i ef t hat DEA Agent J ay St oot hof f

t est i f i ed t hat 81 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne was t he amount sei zed. See

al so Casas, 425 F. 3d at 29, 54 n. 39 ( expl ai ni ng t hat t wo DEA agent s

i dent i f i ed Pi zar r o as one of t he suspect s par t i ci pat i ng i n t he

Mar ch 21, 1994 ai r por t t r ansact i on f r om whi ch t he agent s secur ed

f our sui t cases cont ai ni ng t he 81 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne) . At

Pi zar r o' s f i r st sent enci ng hear i ng, Pi zar r o' s counsel st at ed t hat

t he 81 ki l ogr ams had act ual l y been pr esent ed i n cour t . Fur t her ,

Pi zar r o' s own descr i pt i on of t he evi dence i ncl udes mul t i pl e

wi t nesses t est i f yi ng t hat Pi zar r o was i nvol ved i n di st r i but i ng

quant i t i es of cocai ne wel l over f i ve ki l ogr ams. I n f act , evi dence

showed that "Pi zar r o coor di nat ed t he shi pment of dr ugs t hr ough t he

ai r por t i n Puer t o Ri co, " Cor r ey, 570 F. 3d at 375, and "seven

cooper at i ng wi t nesses . . . i dent i f i ed Pi zar r o as a member of t he

conspi r acy and descr i bed hi s r ol e and speci f i c act i vi t i es t her ei n, "

Casas, 425 F. 3d at 54 n. 39. Hence, we concl ude beyond a r easonabl e

-29-


30/104

doubt t hat t he omi t t ed el ement was " suppor t ed by over whel mi ng

evi dence. " Neder , 527 U. S. at 17.

I n sum, because we have f ound t he omi t t ed el ement of drug

quant i t y t o be bot h uncont est ed and suppor t ed by overwhel mi ng

evi dence, we need not deci de whether t he absence of a cont est i s

r equi r ed i n or der t o f i nd har ml ess er r or . I n t he ci r cumst ances of

t hi s case, t he j ur y ver di ct woul d have been t he same absent t he

er r or . We t her ef or e f i nd t he er r or har ml ess beyond a r easonabl e

doubt . 21

III.

We t hus t ur n t o Pi zar r o' s cl ai ms of er r or r el at ed t o hi s

most r ecent sent ence. I ndependent of t he Al l eyne er r or s, whi ch

i mpl i cat ed hi s convi ct i ons, Pi zar r o ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

i gnor ed our pr i or r emand or der by r ef usi ng t o engage i n cr edi bi l i t y

assessment s wi t h r espect t o t he conspi r acy dr ug quant i t y

at t r i but abl e t o hi m and by r ef usi ng t o consi der hi s ar gument s

21 I n addi t i on t o hi s Al l eyne ar gument s, Pi zar r o cl ai ms t hathi s "st at ut or y and const i t ut i onal r i ght s t o a speedy t r i al andsent enci ng were deni ed as a resul t of t he commencement of t r i al 41mont hs af t er [ hi s] i ndi ct ment and t he f ur t her del ay of sent enci ng

unt i l year s af t er . " As t he gover nment pr oper l y poi nt s out , Pi zar r ohas not devel oped t hi s ar gument beyond t hi s one sentence;t her ef or e, t he ar gument i s wai ved. See Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no,895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( " [ I ] ssues adver t ed t o i n aper f unct ory manner , unaccompani ed by some ef f or t at devel opedar gument at i on, ar e deemed wai ved. " ) . Fur t her mor e, as to pr et r i aldel ay, we have al r eady hel d t hat t here was no Speedy Tr i al Act orSi xt h Amendment vi ol at i on. See Casas, 425 F. 3d at 30- 36.

-30-


31/104

r egardi ng t he f i r ear m enhancement . We agr ee, and hence we must

vacat e hi s sent ence. 22

A. Individualized Drug Quantity

Dur i ng t he f i r st t wo sent enci ngs, t he di st r i ct cour t

concl uded t hat t he j ur y' s gui l t y ver di ct r esol ved any credi bi l i t y

i ssues about t he t est i mony r el at i ng t o t he dr ug quant i t y

f or eseeabl e t o Pi zar r o. I n bot h Casas and Cor r ey, we expl ai ned

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was wr ong, see Casas, 425 F. 3d at 64 n. 56;

Cor r ey, 570 F. 3d at 378- 79, and we twi ce or der ed t he di st r i ct cour t

t o conduct cr edi bi l i t y assessment s, "based on t he whol e r ecor d, "

see Cor r ey, 570 F. 3d at 381, when cal cul at i ng i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug

quant i t y.

Pi zar r o poi nt ed t he di st r i ct cour t t o our deci si ons when

ar gui ng t hat cr edi bi l i t y assessment s wer e r equi r ed f or al l

wi t nesses on whose t est i mony t he cour t was r el yi ng f or i t s

i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t y det er mi nat i on. I n Cor r ey, we

expl ai ned:

On r emand, t he appel l ant s devel oped argument s at t acki ngt he credi bi l i t y and r el i abi l i t y of ot her wi t nesses.Though our di scussi on i n t he pr i or opi ni on was f ocused onMar t nez and Pr ez, equal l y appl i cabl e t o al l wi t nesseswas t he r at i onal e f or r equi r i ng i ndependent credi bi l i t yassessment s by the sent enci ng j udge . . . . [ A] f t er ourr emand, t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have made cr edi bi l i t y

22 Thi s next r esent enci ng wi l l be Pi zar r o' s f our t h sent enci ng.As expl ai ned above, Pi zar r o was i ni t i al l y sent enced i n 2002 t o l i f ei mpr i sonment . Af t er hi s f i r st appeal , Pi zar r o was r esent enced i n2006 t o 30 year s i n pr i son. Af t er hi s second appeal , Pi zar r o wasr esent enced i n 2012 t o 23 1/ 3 year s i n pr i son.

-31-


32/104

det er mi nat i ons as necessary t o r esol ve t he f act s i ndi sput e.

570 F. 3d at 379 ( emphasi s added) . Nevert hel ess, i n t he 2012

r esent enci ng t hat i s t he subj ect of t hi s appeal , t he di st r i ct cour t

agai n t ook t he posi t i on t hat "cr edi bi l i t y i s not an i ssue" t o be

consi dered f or any wi t nesses other t han Thomas Mart nez and I sr ael

Pr ez- Del gado. Ther ef or e, t he di st r i ct cour t r el i ed on t est i mony

f r om ot her wi t nesses wi t hout conducti ng any cr edi bi l i t y

assessment s. Thi s i mpr oper cour se, now r epeat ed, di r ect l y

cont r avened Cor r ey' s expl i ci t or der .

The gover nment cl ai ms t hat t he f ol l owi ng st at ement f r om

t he di st r i ct cour t dur i ng t he 2012 r esent enci ng i ndi cat es t hat i t

di d per f or m t he r equi r ed credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons:

You poi nt out [ si c] t o cr oss exami nat i on, t o somei mpeachment , ot her t est i mony, but I have t o part f r omt hat pr emi se. Ther e wer e convi ct i ons i n t hi s case as t oyour cl i ent . Some others may have been acqui t t ed, othermat t er s, but i f you l ook at t he gl obal [ si c] andsummar i ze t he t est i mony, i f you l ook at i t gl obal l y Iunderst and by t he pr eponderance of t he evi dence i tsuppor t s t hat dr ug f i ndi ng.

( Emphasi s added. ) Cont r ary t o what t he government posi t s, t he most

nat ur al r eadi ng of t hi s passage, par t i cul ar l y i n l i ght of t he

di str i ct cour t ' s expl i ci t stat ement t hat "credi bi l i t y i s not an

i ssue" f or wi t nesses ot her t han Mar t nez and Pr ez- Del gado, i s t hat

yet agai n "t he di st r i ct cour t di d not heed our i nst r uct i on, but

r at her per si st ed i n i t s vi ew t hat t he j ur y ver di ct was

cont r ol l i ng. " Cor r ey, 570 F. 3d at 379.

-32-


33/104

" [ W] her e t he di st r i ct cour t has expr essl y made cl ear t hat

i t i s not conducti ng a credi bi l i t y i nqui r y, i t woul d be

di si ngenuous of us t o act ot her wi se. " I d. at 381. Ther ef or e, we

must vacate Pi zar r o' s sent ence and remand f or r esent enci ng under

841( b) ( 1) ( A) . The di st r i ct cour t ' s credi bi l i t y assessment s must

be based on t he whol e recor d f or al l wi t nesses on whose test i mony

t he cour t has r el i ed t o cal cul at e t he conspi r acy dr ug quant i t y

f or eseeabl e t o Pi zar r o. We under st and t he par t i cul ar bur den t hat

cr edi bi l i t y assessment s i mpose on t he di st r i ct cour t under t he

ci r cumst ances here; however , t hat bur den does not permi t a sent ence

t hat does not f ul l y compor t wi t h al l l egal r equi r ement s.

B. Firearm Enhancement

Pi zar r o al so asser t s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by

r ef usi ng t o consi der hi s ar gument s r ef ut i ng t he t wo- poi nt f i r ear m

enhancement . We agr ee. I n Cor r ey, we unambi guousl y asser t ed:

Pi zar r o shoul d have a r eal oppor t uni t y t o chal l enge t hi si nf er ence [ t hat t he conspi r acy' s use of weapons woul d bef or eseeabl e t o Pi zar r o] by ar gui ng t he quest i on off or eseeabi l i t y t o a f act- f i nder wi l l i ng t o consi der hi sar gument s. Thus, on r emand, . . . [ h] e wi l l be abl e t omake f act ual ar gument s at t acki ng cr edi bi l i t y andf or eseeabi l i t y, whi ch t he cour t wi l l consi der andr esol ve.

Cor r ey, 570 F. 3d at 401. Never t hel ess, t he di st r i ct cour t r ef used

t o hear Pi zar r o' s argument s concer ni ng t he f i r ear m enhancement ,

i ncor r ect l y asser t i ng numer ous t i mes t hat consi der at i on of t he

enhancement was " out si de t he scope of t he r emand or der . "

-33-


34/104

The gover nment at t empts t o sal vage t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

appl i cat i on of t he enhancement by ref er r i ng t o t he cour t ' s

st at ement t hat " [ a] gai n I ment i oned t hat I was not goi ng t o di st ur b

t hat enhancement , but even i f I were t o make i t anew, counsel made

t he ar gument s, but I under st and t her e has been test i mony i n t hi s

part i cul ar case f or exampl e and agai n t hi s gent l eman has not been

acqui t t ed of any Count s, ot her def endant s have. " Cont r ar y t o t he

gover nment ' s ar gument , i t appear s t hat , as wi t h i t s r ef usal t o

conduct t he credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons f or i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug

quant i t y, t he di st r i ct cour t r el i ed on t he j ur y ver di ct i nst ead of

conduct i ng t he i nqui r y we di r ect ed. Whi l e t he cour t di d poi nt t o

wi t ness t est i mony regar di ng t he "f or eseeabi l i t y of possessi on of

f i r ear ms" t o Pi zar r o, t he cour t er r ed by not consi der i ng Pi zar r o' s

ar gument s r egar di ng the enhancement or per f or mi ng the credi bi l i t y

determi nat i ons t hat we sai d were necessary. The cour t must

consi der Pi zar r o' s argument s on r emand.

C. Remaining Issues

1. PSR

Wi t h r espect t o bot h t he i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t y and

t he f or eseeabl e use of f i r ear ms, Pi zar r o cl ai ms t hat t he most

r ecent PSR r epeat ed t he def i ci enci es t hat we or der ed cor r ect ed i n

our pr i or deci si ons. We di sagr ee.

Pr evi ousl y, we di r ect ed t hat " t he sent enci ng cour t

shoul d, on r emand, pr ovi de Pi zar r o wi t h a PSR whi ch i dent i f i es

-34-


35/104

speci f i c dr ug quant i t i es. " Cor r ey, 570 F. 3d at 400. We expl ai ned

t hat , " [ a] r med wi t h t hi s PSR, Pi zar r o wi l l be gi ven a genui ne

oppor t uni t y t o ar gue t hat t he t est i mony was i ncr edi bl e, t hat i t

does not suppor t t he i ncr i mi nat i ng i nf er ence, and/ or t hat i t was

not f or eseeabl e. " I d. Wi t h r espect t o t he f i r ear menhancement , we

di r ected t hat t he PSR i dent i f y t r i al t r anscri pt por t i ons t hat

suppor t any concl usi on t hat he possessed weapons or t hat weapon

possessi on was f or eseeabl e t o hi m. I d. at 401. We al so "or dered

t hat t he PSR i ncl ude r ef er ences t o t he t r i al r ecor d. " See i d. at

384.

As we or der ed, t he Second Amended PSR f i l ed on J ul y 7,

2011 i ncl uded i n paragr aphs 92 thr ough 102 a synopsi s of t est i mony

wi t h r espect t o speci f i c dr ug quant i t i es t hat ar guabl y wer e

f or eseeabl e t o Pi zar r o. Wi t h r espect t o a f i r ear m, par agr aph 92

speci f i cal l y ci t ed t est i mony t hat Pi zar r o r ecei ved a f i r ear m

t hrough t he mai l i n August 1993. Hence, t he Second Amended PSR

sat i sf i ed our or der i n Cor r ey.

2. Drug Type

Pi zar r o ar gues t hat because t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons on

conspi r acy di d not i ncl ude t he t ype and quant i t y of dr ugs, t he j ur y

coul d have f ound hi m gui l t y onl y of conspi r acy t o di st r i but e

her oi n, possi bl y pr oduci ng a l ower base of f ense l evel under t he

Gui del i nes. We di sagr ee. The supersedi ng i ndi ct ment char ged t hat

t he conspi r acy i nvol ved "appr oxi matel y one t housand f our hundr ed

-35-


36/104

gr ams of her oi n . . . and appr oxi mat el y ni ne thousand f our hundr ed

f or t y f i ve ( 9, 445) ki l ogr ams of cocai ne. " ( Emphasi s added. )

"Because t hose dr ug quant i t i es and t ypes were j oi ned by the

conj unct i ve t er m' and' r at her t han t he di sj unct i ve ' or , ' t her e was

no ambi gui t y about t he cr i me charged. " Soto- Ben quez, 356 F. 3d at

48- 49. Fur t her , t he di st r i ct cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y numer ous

t i mes t hat t he char ged conspi r acy i nvol ved her oi n "and" cocai ne,

i ncl udi ng when summari zi ng t he conspi r acy charge, when r eadi ng the

i ndi ct ment , and when descr i bi ng t he pr oof of t he conspi r acy i t sel f

and t he el ement of i nt ent t hat woul d be necessar y f or a gui l t y

ver di ct.

3. Other Sentencing Arguments

Pi zar r o makes a host of other sent enci ng argument s,

i ncl udi ng t hat t he sent enci ng cour t "was not f ami l i ar wi t h t he

ent i r e recor d, " i mpr oper l y consi der ed 18 U. S. C. 3553 f act or s, and

shoul d have gr ant ed cer t ai n downward depart ur es and var i ances.

Si nce we ar e al r eady vacat i ng Pi zar r o' s sent ence and or der i ng

r esent enci ng, we need not r each Pi zar r o' s al t er nat e cl ai ms. See

Cor r ey, 570 F. 3d at 401 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Vi dal - Reyes, 562

F. 3d 43, 48 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) .

IV.

I n concl usi on, we hol d t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed

i nst r uct i onal Al l eyne er r or s by f ai l i ng t o char ge t he j ur y on t he

essent i al el ement of i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t y f or t he

-36-


37/104

conspi r acy count and t he essent i al el ement of dr ug quant i t y f or t he

possessi on count bef or e appl yi ng t he 841( b) ( 1) ( A) st at ut or y

sentenci ng r ange t hat i ncl uded a mandatory mi ni mumsent ence on each

count . Never t hel ess, because we concl ude beyond a r easonabl e doubt

t hat t he er r or s di d not cont r i but e t o t he r esul t s obt ai ned, we f i nd

t he er r or s har ml ess.

However , si nce t he di st r i ct cour t i gnor ed our or der t o

conduct cr edi bi l i t y assessment s when cal cul at i ng i ndi vi dual i zed

dr ug quant i t y, and t o consi der Pi zar r o' s f i r ear m enhancement

argument s, we vacat e Pi zar r o' s sent ence and r emand f or

r esent enci ng. When r esent enci ng Pi zar r o under 841( b) ( 1) ( A) , t he

di st r i ct cour t must ( 1) conduct credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons, based

on t he whol e recor d, f or al l wi t nesses on whose t est i mony i t has

r el i ed i n cal cul at i ng an i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug quant i t y; ( 2) consi der

Pi zar r o' s argument s r egar di ng a f i r ear m enhancement ; and ( 3)

consi der , as usual , any addi t i onal sent enci ng ar gument s t hat

Pi zar r o has not wai ved and t hat we have not al r eady r esol ved and

"such new argument s or new f act s as ar e made newl y r el evant by

[ our ] deci si on - - whet her by the r easoni ng or by the r esul t . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Ti cchi ar el l i , 171 F. 3d 24, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 1999)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) .

Pi zar r o was ar r est ed i n 1996 and t r i ed i n 1999. Hence,

as we consi der t hi s t hi r d di r ect appeal , he has been i n cust ody f or

near l y t wo decades wi t hout a r esol ut i on of hi s case. Pi zar r o has

-37-


38/104

al r eady been sentenced thr ee t i mes, and we are now r emandi ng f or a

f our t h sent enci ng pr oceedi ng. The di st r i ct cour t ar r i ved at t he

l ast concur r ent sent ence of 23 1/ 3 year s of i mpr i sonment and f i ve

year s of super vi sed r el ease af t er cal cul at i ng i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug

quant i t y and appl yi ng a f i r ear m enhancement , wi t hout wei ghi ng

Pi zar r o' s pot ent i al l y mi t i gat i ng credi bi l i t y ar gument s. Our

vacat ur and r emand ar e f or t he pur pose of cor r ect i ng t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o eval uat e t hose ar gument s, and we t her ef or e see

no j ust i f i cat i on f or t he cour t t o i mpose a l onger sent ence on

r emand t han i t deemed appr opr i at e wi t hout consi der i ng cr edi bi l i t y.

We concl ude t hat i t i s j ust under t hese ci r cumst ances t o di r ect t he

di st r i ct cour t , af t er consi der i ng Pi zar r o' s ar gument s, t o i mpose a

sent ence no l onger t han t he concur r ent sent ence of 23 1/ 3 years of

i mpr i sonment and f i ve year s of super vi sed r el ease. See 28 U. S. C.

2106. We i nt i mat e no vi ew on whet her t he sent ence shoul d be

l ower .

We t her ef or e af f i r m Pi zar r o' s convi ct i ons, vacat e hi s

sent ence, and r emand f or r esent enci ng consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

So ordered.

Concurring Opinions Follow

-38-


39/104

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge, concurring. I n anal yzi ng t he

compl ex i ssues i n t hi s case, I became awar e of t he si gni f i cant

i nconsi st ency i n t he way cour t s have r evi ewed f or har ml essness t he

f ai l ur e t o i nst r uct on an el ement of a cr i me. I wr i t e separ at el y

t o expr ess my concer n r egar di ng t hi s i nconsi st ency, whi ch exi st s

wi t hi n my ci r cui t and i n ot her cour t s, and t he pot ent i al l y

unconst i t ut i onal appl i cat i ons of Neder v. Uni t ed St at es, 527 U. S.

1 ( 1999) , t hat have r esul t ed f r om i t . Gi ven t hat t he Si xt h

Amendment r i ght t o a j ur y t r i al i s at st ake, I ur ge the Supr eme

Cour t t o cl ar i f y t he l i ne bet ween an unconst i t ut i onal , di r ect ed

gui l t y ver di ct and a har ml ess f ai l ur e t o i nst r uct on an el ement .

I.

A const i t ut i onal er r or i s har ml ess wher e t he revi ewi ng

cour t concl udes " ' beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat t he er r or

compl ai ned of di d not cont r i but e t o t he ver di ct obt ai ned, ' " i . e. ,

" t hat t he j ur y ver di ct woul d have been t he same absent t he er r or . "

Neder , 527 U. S. at 15, 17 ( quot i ng Chapman v. Cal i f or ni a, 386 U. S.

18, 24 ( 1967) ) . 23 Neder expr essl y st at es t hat a " j ur y ver di ct woul d

23 My col l eague i ncor r ect l y st at es i n hi s concur r ence t hat Ihave rej ected t he Chapman harml ess er r or st andard as appl i cabl e t ot hi s case. To t he cont r ar y, I f ul l y embr ace use of t he Chapman

st andard here. My vi ew, as el aborated bel ow, i s t hat t he Chapmanst andar d has a uni que appl i cat i on wher e the er r or asser t ed i s t hef ai l ur e t o obt ai n a j ur y ver di ct on an el ement of t he cr i me.

The mi sunder st andi ng of my vi ew i s r ef l ect ed i n t hehypot het i cal of f er ed i n Sect i on VI of t he respondi ng concur r ence.As I i nt er pr et Neder , t hat hypot het i cal coul d not happen. Thepr oposed scenar i o assumes t hat a r evi ewi ng cour t coul d concl udebeyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat t he j ur y ver di ct woul d have been t he

-39-


40/104

have been t he same absent " a f ai l ur e t o i nst r uct on an el ement ,

"where a revi ewi ng cour t concl udes beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat

t he omi t t ed el ement was uncontest ed and suppor t ed by over whel mi ng

evi dence. " Neder , 527 U. S. at 17 ( emphasi s added) . Hence, si nce

we have concl uded beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat t he t hr eshol d f i ve

ki l ogr am cocai ne quant i t i es wer e bot h uncont est ed by Pi zar r o and

suppor t ed by overwhel mi ng evi dence, Neder mandates our concl usi on

her e t hat t he er r or s under Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct .

2151 ( 2013) , were harml ess.

Neder , however , di d not unequi vocal l y answer whet her i t s

t wo- par t f or mul at i on f or f i ndi ng an omi t t ed el ement har ml ess i n

Neder ' s case - - t hat t he el ement was both uncont est ed and support ed

by over whel mi ng evi dence - - was mer el y descr i pt i ve of t he

ci r cumst ances i n Neder i t sel f or al so pr escr i pt i ve f or any f i ndi ng

of harml essness where an el ement was omi t t ed. I n Neder , t he j ur y

i nst r uct i ons f or t he char ge of f i l i ng a f al se i ncome t ax r et ur n di d

not i ncl ude t he el ement of mat er i al i t y. Neder , 527 U. S. at 6. The

evi dence showed t hat Neder f ai l ed t o r epor t over f i ve mi l l i on

dol l ar s i n i ncome on hi s t ax r et ur ns. I d. at 16. The Cour t

same absent t he er r or even where the def endant cont est ed t heomi t t ed el ement . Under my r eadi ng of Supreme Cour t precedent ,

however , a cour t coul d onl y reach such a concl usi on about t hej ury' s ver di ct i f i t det er mi ned t hat t he evi dence on t he omi t t edel ement was overwhel mi ng and that t he el ement was uncontest ed.

I mpor t ant l y, and al so cont r ar y to my col l eague' sr epr esent at i ons, my vi ew does not der i ve "al most ent i r el y f r om asi ngl e quot e f r om Neder . " I t i s based on bot h a car ef ul anal ysi sof t he Neder deci si on and on l ongst andi ng pr i nci pl es devel oped i nt he Cour t ' s pr ecedent on di r ect ed gui l t y ver di ct s.

-40-


41/104

descr i bed t wo avai l abl e st andar ds f or mat er i al i t y24 and concl uded

t hat "[ u] nder ei t her of t hese f or mul at i ons, no j ur y coul d

r easonabl y concl ude t hat Neder ' s f ai l ur e t o r epor t subst ant i al

amount s of i ncome on hi s t ax ret ur ns was not ' a mat er i al mat t er . ' "

I d. The Cour t t hen expl ai ned:

The f ai l ure t o r epor t such subst ant i al i ncomei ncont r over t i bl y est abl i shes t hat Neder ' s f al sest atement s wer e mat er i al t o a det er mi nat i on of hi s i ncomet ax l i abi l i t y. The evi dence suppor t i ng mat er i al i t y wasso over whel mi ng, i n f act , t hat Neder di d not ar gue to t hej ury - - and does not ar gue her e - - t hat hi s f al sest atement s of i ncome coul d be f ound i mmater i al .

I d. at 16- 17.

The Cour t ul t i mat el y decl ar ed i t s hol di ng usi ng t he

f or mul at i on quot ed above, concl udi ng t hat "[ i ] n t hi s si t uat i on,

where a r evi ewi ng cour t concl udes beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat

t he omi t t ed el ement was uncontest ed and suppor t ed by over whel mi ng

evi dence, such t hat t he j ur y ver di ct woul d have been t he same

absent t he er r or , t he er r oneous i nst r uct i on i s pr oper l y f ound t o be

har ml ess. " I d. at 17. Not wi t hst andi ng t he conj unct i ve "and"

l i nki ng "uncont est ed" and "support ed by overwhel mi ng evi dence, "25

24 Under one f or mul at i on, "a f al se st at ement i s mat er i al i f i thas a nat ur al t endency t o i nf l uence, or [ i s] capabl e ofi nf l uenci ng, t he deci si on of t he deci si onmaki ng body t o whi ch i twas addr essed. " Neder , 527 U. S. at 16 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Under t he ot her def i ni t i on,"any f ai l ur e t o r epor t i ncome i s mat er i al . " I d. ( i nt er nalquotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

25 My concur r i ng col l eague asser t s t hat I have undul y r el i edon t he conj unct i ve "and" as used by t he Supr eme Cour t i n t hi spassage f r om Neder whi l e i gnor i ng t he ar guabl y i nconsi st entpar al l el use of t hat wor d l at er i n t he opi ni on. Whi l e t he

-41-


42/104

cour t s have t aken i nconsi st ent posi t i ons on whet her a def endant ' s

cont est of an omi t t ed el ement , even one suppor t ed by over whel mi ng

evi dence, r ender s t he omi ssi on non- har ml ess. I n addi t i on,

Neder l ef t unr esol ved t he rel at ed quest i on of what a def endant i s

r equi r ed t o do t o "cont est " t he omi t t ed el ement under Neder . I n my

vi ew, Neder , especi al l y when anal yzed agai nst t he backdr op of t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s cases r egar di ng di r ect ed gui l t y ver di ct s, r equi r es

t hat an omi t t ed el ement be uncont est ed i n order t o be f ound

har ml ess. However , t hi s ci r cui t has not uni f or ml y appr oached t he

quest i on, and t her e i s si gni f i cant i nconsi st ency among t he ci r cui t s

and st at e cour t s.

A. The Debate over "Uncontested"

1. Inconsistency in this Circuit

I n cer t ai n cases, our har ml essness i nqui r y has exami ned

bot h whet her t he omi t t ed el ement was uncontest ed and whet her i t was

suppor t ed by over whel mi ng evi dence. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

Har akal y, 734 F. 3d 88, 95- 96 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( f i ndi ng omi ssi on

har ml ess wher e overwhel mi ng evi dence suppor t ed omi t t ed el ement of

conj unct i ve f or mul at i on I descr i be her e i s i mpor t ant t o myanal ysi s, my vi ew of t he har ml ess er r or anal ysi s i n Neder i s basedon t he ent i r e opi ni on const r ued agai nst t he backdr op of t he Supr eme

Cour t ' s pr ecedent on di r ect ed gui l t y ver di ct s.Mor eover , i n cont r ast t o t he Cour t ' s st at ement of i t s hol di ngas quot ed her e, t he l at er use of "and" hi ghl i ght ed by my col l eaguei s expl i ci t l y of f er ed as an "exampl e. " See Neder , 527 U. S. at 19.Nonethel ess, I have acknowl edged t hat Neder ' s l anguage i ssuscept i bl e t o my col l eague' s r eadi ng despi t e my vi ew t hat , i nl i ght of Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent , t hat r eadi ng cannot be cor r ect .

-42-


43/104

t hr eshol d dr ug quant i t y and def endant , i nst ead of cont est i ng t hat

t hr eshol d quant i t y, "acknowl edged r esponsi bi l i t y f or a quant i t y of

dr ugs t hat f ar exceeds t he t r i gger i ng amount " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Zhen Zhou Wu, 711 F. 3d 1, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( "But here, t he

def endant s di d cont est t he pr osecut i on' s cl ai m[ , ] . . . t hus maki ng

t hi s case di f f er ent f r om Neder . ") ; Uni t ed St at es v. Nel son-

Rodr i guez, 319 F. 3d 12, 48- 51 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( f i ndi ng pr eserved

Appr endi er r or s har ml ess af t er concl udi ng t hat def endant s di d not

cont est omi t t ed el ement and t hat overwhel mi ng evi dence suppor t ed

el ement ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bai l ey, 270 F. 3d 83, 89 ( 1st Ci r . 2001)

( "The er r or cannot be harml ess where, as here, t he def endant has

cont est ed t he omi t t ed el ement and t he evi dence i s suf f i ci ent t o

suppor t a cont r ar y f i ndi ng. ") .

Our cases t hat have per f or med thi s dual i nqui r y, however ,

have not made cl ear whether a def endant ' s cont est of an omi t t ed

el ement pr ecl udes a f i ndi ng of har ml essness, or whet her such a

cont est i s mer el y r el evant t o t he har ml essness i nqui r y, but not

det er mi nat i ve of i t . I n Uni t ed St at es v. Pr i gmor e, 243 F. 3d 1 ( 1st

Ci r . 2001) , we i ndeed cont empl at ed t hat a def endant ' s cont est of an

omi t t ed el ement mi ght i t sel f pr ecl ude a f i ndi ng of har ml essness.

See i d. at 22 ( "Unl i ke Neder , t he gover nment ' s evi dence . . . was

cont est ed by t he def endant s; as we have st ated, def endant s

i nt r oduced t est i moni al evi dence [ t o t he cont r ar y] . . . . Gi ven

Neder ' s r epeat ed emphasi s on t he ' uncont est ed' nat ur e of t he

-43-


44/104

evi dence of mat er i al i t y i n t hat case, t he cont est ed nat ur e of t he

. . . evi dence i n t hi s case mi ght wel l suf f i ce t o di st i ngui sh i t

f r omNeder i n and of i t sel f . " ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) . However , we di d

not need to deci de the quest i on because t he cont est ed el ement was

not suppor t ed by overwhel mi ng evi dence. I d.

Conver sel y, ot her cases i n t hi s ci r cui t seem t o have

equat ed har ml essness sol el y wi t h over whel mi ng evi dence. See, e. g. ,

Uni t ed St at es v. Sot o- Ben quez, 356 F. 3d 1, 48 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( " I n

deter mi ni ng whet her an A

united states v. pizarro, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents