Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Before
Thompson, Selya, and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
December 3, 2014
This is defendant-appellant
John Correy's third visit to this court, but his first solo
appearance.
He
March
21,
1994,
Drug
Enforcement
Administration
841(a)(1)
and
18
U.S.C.
-2-
(Count
4).
Correy
and
one
reassigned
sentencing.
to
U.S.
Judge
District
Laffitte
Judge
made
Hctor
Laffitte
individual
for
drug-quantity
Correy
responsible
for
over
150
kilograms
of
cocaine,
He added a two-level
category
("Guidelines")
VI.
range
Out
of
360
of
U.S.
months
-3-
to
Sentencing
life,
Guidelines
Judge
Laffitte
We
Correy, 570
We flagged
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005), held that
the Guidelines must be treated as advisory, rather than mandatory.
-4-
at 64 n.56.
Accordingly,
it should have been clear on remand that the sentencing judge had
to examine both Martnez's and Prez's credibility.
See Correy,
Judge Laffitte
Id. at 374.
We found that, as to
all defendants, the sentencing judge "did not heed our instruction"
to thoroughly review the record in order to evaluate witnesses'
credibility and make individualized drug-quantity determinations,
"but rather persisted in [his] view that the jury verdict was
controlling"
and
"categorically
credibility assessment."
refuse[d]
Id. at 379-81.
to
engage
in
Further, as to Correy,
-5-
used
at
his
prior
sentencing,
and
which
"simply
included
Id. at 402.
C. Third Sentencing
On July 6, 2011, the probation department filed an
amended presentence report in preparation for resentencing.
After
He further claimed
that the government was unable to prove he was responsible for more
than five kilograms of cocaine, though he conceded that his conduct
involved 3.5 to 5 kilograms of cocaine.
On
October
24,
2011,
following
Judge
Laffitte's
found
Correy
responsible
for
between
five
and
fifteen
He
-6-
Out
Judge
misconduct
Gelp
during
erred
his
by
failing
trial
as
to
consider
justification
prosecutorial
for
downward
grounds that (1) Correy had waived the issue by not raising it at
the October 24 sentencing hearing, and (2) the district court
lacked jurisdiction to revisit the sentence pursuant to Rule 35(a).
This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
Before
grounds:
us,
Correy
challenges
his
sentence
on
four
As a
drugs
attributable
to,
or
reasonably
-8-
foreseeable
by,
the
offender."4
101, 103 (1st Cir. 2004)); see also United States v. RamrezNegrn, 751 F.3d 42, 47-48 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 276
(2014). This is so even though "we derive the applicable statutory
maximum
in
perspective."5
also
drug
conspiracy
case
from
conspiracy-wide
Ramrez-Negrn,
751
F.3d
at
49
n.4.
Absent
"an
"drug-quantity
is
an
entirely
Id. at
380-81.
Nevertheless, at Correy's third sentencing, Judge Gelp
insisted that this court had partly tied his hands with respect to
Correy's drug-quantity determination.
-10-
it
would
be
"somewhat
moot
exercise"
to
make
for
less
than
five
kilograms
of
cocaine,
he
statutory-maximum-controlling
amount,
rather
than
the
See Correy,
Id. at 380.
-11-
As a result, he refused to
that
Correy
was
responsible
for
five
to
fifteen
62, 67 (1st Cir. 2003) ("One aspect of the law of the case doctrine
is the 'mandate' rule, which requires a district court to follow
the decisions of a higher court."); United States v. Ticchiarelli,
171 F.3d 24, 31 (1st Cir. 1999) (same). Accordingly, we vacate and
remand Correy's case for resentencing for the third time, and at
the risk of sounding like a broken record direct the sentencing
judge to determine the drug quantity specifically attributable to
Correy by thoroughly reviewing the record and assessing witness
credibility.
-12-
B. Remaining Issues
Correy
raises
three
further
arguments
on
appeal.6
See
See
Correy
based
on
an
individualized
drug-quantity