United States v. Oscar Guadalupe Leyva-Franco
Docket: 02-10036
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 5, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
The United States appeals a sentence given to Oscar Guadalupe Leyva-Franco for importing over five kilograms of cocaine, which included a downward departure of four levels based on the claim of "aberrant behavior" under U.S.S.G. 5K2.20. The government contests this departure, citing evidence suggesting Leyva-Franco admitted to crossing the border multiple times with cocaine prior to his arrest, a claim Leyva-Franco denies. During sentencing, the court refrained from making a definitive finding on this admission, stating it considered the evidence but did not rule on it. The appeal argues that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1), which requires courts to allow comments on the presentence report, resolve objections, and document findings related to contested matters. The Ninth Circuit's precedent mandates strict compliance with this rule. The guidelines permit a downward departure if the defendant’s conduct is deemed "extraordinary" and qualifies as "aberrant behavior," defined as a single, unplanned criminal act that signifies a significant deviation from an otherwise lawful life. The presentence report acknowledged the issue of whether Leyva-Franco admitted to a series of importations but did not recommend how to resolve it. Leyva-Franco objected to any reference to such admissions, while the government maintained that the admission undermined the claim of aberrant behavior, indicating that the current offense did not represent a significant deviation from his criminal conduct. This unresolved issue was central during the sentencing hearing. The district court failed to resolve a relevant objection and underlying conflict before imposing a sentence, neglecting to make a necessary finding on the matter after sentencing and not assuring the parties of its immateriality to the decision. This omission violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(1), which requires the court to explicitly resolve factual conflicts or determine that no finding is necessary. The appellee acknowledged this requirement but argued that Rule 32 protects defendants and should not be used by the government to contest a downward departure for aberrant conduct. He also claimed that the court’s finding of aberrant conduct resolved the factual dispute regarding prior conduct. These arguments were found unpersuasive, as Rule 32 serves multiple purposes, including ensuring all relevant issues are addressed for appellate review. The court emphasized that both sides are entitled to a resolution of conflicts. The district court's decision to grant a downward departure did not satisfy Rule 32(c)(1) because it left unresolved conflicts concerning the defendant's conduct. Lacking clarity on whether the court acknowledged and addressed the evidentiary conflicts, the case was remanded for further findings and resentencing. The sentence was vacated and remanded, with the panel finding the case suitable for decision without oral argument.