U.S. v. Zuleta-Alvarez

Decision Date07 September 1990
Docket NumberNos. 89-2104,ZULETA-ALVAREZ,RAMIREZ-FERNANDEZ,s. 89-2104
Citation922 F.2d 33
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John Jairo, a/k/a John Zuleta, Defendant, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Germain, a/k/a Germain Fernandez-Ramirez, a/k/a Germain Ramirez, a/k/a Herman, Defendant, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ralph GUTHZEIT, Defendant, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Richard Allen WEST, a/k/a Dicky West, Defendant, Appellant. to 89-2106 and 90-1062. . Heard
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Julian L. Sweet, Lewiston, Me., by appointment of the Court, for defendant, appellant John Jairo Zuleta-Alvarez.

William W. McCandless, Jr., Portland, Me., by appointment of the Court, for defendant, appellant Germain Ramirez-Fernandez.

Thomas F. Hallett, Portland, Me., for defendant, appellant Ralph Guthzeit.

David Beneman, with whom Levenson, Vickerson & Beneman, Portland, Me., was on brief for defendant, appellant Richard Allen West.

F. Mark Terison, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Richard S. Cohen, U.S. Atty., Portland, Me., was on brief for appellee.

Before CAMPBELL and TORRUELLA, Circuit Judges, and CAFFREY, * Senior District Judge.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.

This is a consolidated appeal from four convictions returned in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Defendant-appellants John Jairo Zuleta-Alvarez, Germain Ramirez-Fernandez and Ralph Guthzeit were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846. Defendant-appellant Richard Allen West was acquitted on the conspiracy charge but was convicted on three separate cocaine distribution charges. All four appellants sought, and were denied, the opportunity to cross-examine live witnesses at sentencing. Appellants now appeal that ruling. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

FACTS

This case involves the transportation of cocaine from Lowell, Massachusetts, and Harrison, New Jersey, to Portland, Maine, where it was subsequently sold. Appellant Ramirez-Fernandez was the contact and ring leader in Portland. Appellant Zuleta-Alvarez served as a source in Lowell and later assisted distribution in Portland. Appellants Guthzeit and West acted as retail distributors in and around Portland.

All four appellants were tried and convicted in August 1989. Sentencing occurred on November 16, 1989. At the sentencing hearing, the government introduced, over appellants' objections, transcripts of the testimony of several trial and grand jury witnesses who were not present for cross-examination. The central issue at sentencing was the amount of cocaine used to arrive at the base offense level. Appellants argued then, and continue to argue now, that the method used for determining the amount of cocaine involved was inaccurate and resulted in double and triple counting.

The court arrived at a base offense level of 32, with a Guideline sentencing range of 121-151 months. Appellants contend that had the amounts of cocaine been accurately counted, the proper base offense level would have been only 26, resulting in a significantly shorter period of incarceration.

Because appellants contend that the government's calculations were unreliable, they urge this court to find that the sentencing court erred in not compelling the production of live witnesses subject to cross-examination.

DISCUSSION

The Sentencing Guidelines provide:

When any factor important to the sentencing determination is reasonably in dispute, the parties shall be given an adequate opportunity to present information to the court regarding that factor. In resolving any reasonable dispute concerning a factor important to the sentencing determination, the court may consider relevant information without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Sec. 6A1.3 (Nov.1990) [hereinafter U.S.S.G.]. Thus, the Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines") prescribe a three step process for determining what evidence is appropriate for sentencing. First, the court must determine that relevant facts are reasonably in dispute. Second, if the court so determines, then the Guidelines allow the parties to present their own evidence in support of any reasonably disputed fact. And third, the Guidelines require the sentencing court to make an independent determination regarding the reliability of all proffered evidence.

Facts Reasonably in Dispute

In cases involving drug related offenses, the procedure used for determining the amount of drugs involved creates an issue inherently ripe for dispute. Despite the fact that it is generally accepted that cross-examination is the best method available for "assur[ing] the 'accuracy of the truth determining process,' " Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), in most drug cases, defendants do not realistically have the option of cross-examining witnesses on the issue of quantity. As Chief Judge Breyer noted in his article, "Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Key Compromises upon which They Rest," 17 Hofstra L.Rev. 1 (1988):

A drug crime defendant ... cannot be expected to argue at trial to the jury that, even though he never possessed any drugs, if he did so, he possessed only one hundred grams and not five hundred, as the government claimed.

Id. at 10. Nevertheless, initial Guidelines offense levels are established based upon a determination by the sentencing court of the quantity of drugs involved, usually in reliance upon trial testimony which may not have been subject to meaningful cross-examination. Therefore, with regard to the instant case, this court is willing to accept that the amount of drugs relied upon at sentencing was an important factor reasonably in dispute.

Evidence Presented by the Parties

Upon review of the record, we find that defendants raised only general objections to the pre-sentence reports and offered no outside evidence in contradiction to the findings contained therein. The pre-sentence reports were issued to defendants on September 26, 1989. The sentencing hearing was not held until November 16, 1989. During the interim, however, defendants laid no foundation establishing the need for cross-examination of witnesses. We cannot find that defendants made any effort to interview and record statements by the disputed witnesses, made any demand...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • US v. Patriarca
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • August 19, 1992
    ... ... Zuleta-Alvarez, 922 F.2d 33, 35-36 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2039, 114 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991). Thus, I have all the evidence, briefing and arguments necessary and appropriate to decide the disputed sentencing issues. I have done so ...          IV. The Travel Act ... ...
  • U.S. v. Sepulveda
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • June 15, 1993
    ... ... to the Johnson residence and the unidentified passengers in Baranski's vehicle) were involved in the conspiracy, and the government has directed us to no such proof. Following the Supreme Court's landmark opinion in Bourjaily, and Justice Stevens's concurrence, 483 U.S. at 185 & n. 2, 107 S.Ct ... See, e.g., United States v. Shattuck, 961 F.2d 1012, 1014-15 (1st Cir.1992); United States v. Zuleta-Alvarez, 922 F.2d 33, 37 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2039, 114 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991) ...         These salutary precepts ... ...
  • U.S. v. Miell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • September 27, 2010
  • U.S. v. Rodriguez-Pacheco
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 5, 2007
    ... ... See U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 (2002) (commentary); see also United States v. Zuleta-Alvarez, 922 F.2d 33, 37 (1st Cir.1990) ...         In Nolan, this circuit rejected a per se rule that the government must produce expert ... denied, 538 U.S. 954, 123 S.Ct. 1646, 155 L.Ed.2d 502 (2003). Since the Supreme Court did not address the issue before us, and since the statute as excised survives, our pre-CPPA case law, including Nolan, survives as well ...         Our reading of the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • 18 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 32 Sentencing and Judgment
    • United States
    • US Code Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
    • January 1, 2023
    ...clearly has discretion in determining the mode, timing, and extent of the evidence offered. See, e.g., United States v. Zuleta-Alvarez, 922 F.2d 33, 36 (1st Cir. 1990) (trial court did not err in denying defendant's late request to introduce rebuttal evidence by way of cross-examination).Su......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT