Today's decision in United States v. Jauregui, --- F.3d ---, No. 16-50429 (9th Cir. 2019), is a must read.
It is a plain-error sentencing reversal out of the SD Ca. The case addresses the intricacies of drug-conspiracy sentencing.
The essential point is that, in a drug conspiracy -- such as conspiracy to import -- for the defendant to be sentenced based on a specific drug type, the district court must make a two-part finding:
Under Banuelos, two findings are necessary to hold a
defendant liable for conspiracy involving a particular drug
type or quantity. First, the district court must find “that the
conspiracy distributed a particular type and quantity of
drugs”—that is, the existence of a conspiracy involving the
particular drug type and quantity. Banuelos, 322 F.3d at 704.
And second, the district court must also make a
determination about the defendant’s personal
responsibility—“that the type and quantity were either
within the scope of [the defendant’s] agreement with his
coconspirators or that the type and quantity were reasonably
foreseeable to [the defendant].” Id.
Here, the indictment charged methamphetamine, and the defendant admitted at the plea colloquy that “it was reasonably foreseeable that the controlled
substance” he would transport “would be methamphetamine
under the Pinkerton case.”
But that was not enough to hold him responsible at sentencing for methamphetamine. This was so because "[n]othing Jauregui admitted during his plea colloquy,
however, even hints at Banuelos’s first prong—“that the
conspiracy distributed a particular type and quantity of
drugs.” Id. Jauregui never admitted that there was in fact a
conspiracy whose object was importing methamphetamine,
nor did he ever admit that the substance found in his vehicle
was, in fact, methamphetamine."
The court went on to find plain error and vacate the sentence.
This is a split decision. And the concurrence makes a strong case for reconsidering Banuelos.
Final note, although the case is about sentencing, it has a thorough discussion of the mens rea for conspiracy in general. It also reminds us "that 'attempts to broaden
the already pervasive and wide-sweeping nets of conspiracy
prosecutions' are disfavored[.]"
