Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Figueroa v. United States, 1st Cir. (1994)
Figueroa v. United States, 1st Cir. (1994)
Figueroa v. United States, 1st Cir. (1994)
______________
A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and Dina Mich
___________________
__________
Chaitowitz, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee
__________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam.
__________
denial of
aside,
a motion
or
convicted of
correct
his
U.S.C.
sentence.
2255
In
was sentenced to
a prison term
affirmed both
a pair of challenges
being
to possess with
months.
his conviction
upon
set
of cocaine, Figueroa
of 188
976 F.2d
to vacate,
1990,
intent to distribute
thereafter
under 28
This
and his
1446 (1st
court
sentence.
Cir. 1992),
(1) the
quantity of
improperly
drugs
for which
he
inflated because
was held
accountable
of "sentencing
entrapment" and
by four
As a
levels because
of his
failing to
improperly
alleged leadership
ineffective in
was
raise these
his counsel
issues earlier.
proceeding,
we
find
each of
them
unpersuasive
and
therefore affirm.
As explained
in greater detail in
"reverse-sting"
operation
(Estaban Mendoza).
course of his
See
___
id. at 1450-51.
___
that
his
their
attempted
involving
During the
Figueroa discussed
organization
had
been
selling
approximately
bags.
The
$6,000 worth
parties
kilograms, with
follow.
settled upon
$30,000 being
At sentencing,
the attempted
This
"dime"
of
two
$10,000 to
$6,000 per
him
that Figueroa
kilograms involved in
conspiracy
hold
initial sale
an
day in
well.
drug per
arrest.
was
of the
based
day.1
reached by extrapolating
the
on Figueroa's
acknowledged
sales of
accountable for
five
kilograms
for purposes
of
In
sentencing.
of
"sentencing
viability of
"sentencing
entrapment"
factor manipulation").
such a
Brewster, 1 F.3d
________
F.2d 256,
more
properly,
51, 55
Panet-Collazo, 960
_____________
(or,
the
United States
_____________
v.
United States
_____________
v.
cert. denied,
____________
____________________
1. The indictment charged that the conspiracy occurred
between December 24, 1989 and January 25, 1990.
A DEA agent
testified that one kilogram
of cocaine would generate
approximately $70,000 when distributed in "dime" bags. See
___
976 F.2d at 1461 n.19.
-3-
113 S. Ct.
191,
220 (1992);
United States v.
_____________
basis
of
based
on
kilograms
facts presented),
the
instant
question
were
that
those
F.2d
a claim on
case provides
misimpression
in
Connell, 960
_______
the
regard is
additional
that
he
and
no
three
Mendoza
two
kilograms
mentioned, this
Figueroa had
month.
the two
actually
agreed
upon).
Figueroa
in the
subject of "manipulation."
as
of drugs that
kilograms involved
Instead,
suggestion that
attempted sale
were the
have
evidence was
insufficient to hold
contends
him responsible
the
on
direct
appeal.
Referring to
(Angel) Figueroa
and his
in the
court
held
U.S.S.G.
offense is
that
3B1.1(a)
enhancement.
evidence
On
likewise unavailing.
was
"an organizer
and thus
appeal,
was insufficient
leadership role.
amply
he
To
was
leader"
subject to
to establish
976 F.2d
The district
or
Figueroa argues
the contrary,
demonstrates, see
___
regarding his
as our
a four-level
only
that he
under
that
the
occupied a
earlier opinion
at 1450-51,
the district
court
supportably
activities
of
found
that
he
his co-conspirators"
"directed
and
...
that
all
he was
the
"the
be
purchased],
delivery of the
44.
"Role
price,
and
the
arrangements
in the
the
offense" determinations
clear error.
See, e.g.,
___ ____
for
App.
are subject
to
United States
_____________
v.
We find none
here.
Finally, as each of Figueroa's central arguments
wanting,
his
subsidiary
allegations regarding
-5-
proves
ineffective