US v. Jean-Baptiste
Filing
OPINION issued by Sandra L. Lynch, Appellate Judge; Bruce M. Selya, Appellate Judge and William J. Kayatta , Jr., Appellate Judge. Unpublished. [15-2441]
Case: 15-2441
Document: 00117110533
Page: 1
Date Filed: 01/26/2017
Entry ID: 6065231
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 15-2441
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ALCINDY JEAN-BAPTISTE,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Jon D. Levy, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Selya, and Kayatta,
Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey W. Langholtz on brief for appellant.
Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorney, and
Thomas E. Delahanty II, United States Attorney, on brief for
appellee.
January 26, 2017
Case: 15-2441
Document: 00117110533
Page: 2
LYNCH, Circuit Judge.
Date Filed: 01/26/2017
Entry ID: 6065231
Alcindy Jean-Baptiste pled guilty
to two charges stemming from his participation in a conspiracy to
distribute cocaine, heroin, and oxycodone in Maine.
After hearing
evidence, the district court sentenced him to 78 months in prison
on each count, to be served concurrently, and four years of
supervised release.
The sentence was at the low end of the
Guidelines Sentencing Range of 78 to 97 months.
Jean-Baptiste appeals from his sentence, making two
arguments.
First, he argues that the district court clearly erred
in its factual finding that the applicable drug quantity, under
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, was 1614 kilograms of marijuana equivalent.
Second, he asks us to change our circuit law so as to require proof
beyond a reasonable doubt for drug quantity determinations, rather
than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The second argument
is repeated in his pro se brief.
Both arguments fail.
The district court based its drug quantity findings on
the testimony of Officer Joey Brown, a ten-year veteran of the
Lewiston
Police
Department
and
the
case
agent
for
the
Drug
Enforcement Administration's investigation of the conspiracy in
which Jean-Baptiste participated.
Officer Brown testified at the
sentencing hearing to explain how wiretapped phone conversations
showed that Jean-Baptiste, a Massachusetts-based supplier, had
provided
inventory
on
multiple
occasions
to
conspiracy that was retailing illegal drugs.
- 2 -
a
Maine-based
In particular,
Case: 15-2441
Document: 00117110533
Page: 3
Date Filed: 01/26/2017
Entry ID: 6065231
Officer Brown testified, without objection from Jean-Baptiste, as
to the meaning of the drug argot used on the wiretapped calls.
The district court found that Officer Brown was credible and that
Jean-Baptiste's participation in two transactions in March 2014
sufficed
to
establish
the
drug
quantity
specified
in
the
Presentence Investigation Report.1
Jean-Baptiste made no objection in the district court to
either of the alleged errors he now identifies, so we subject his
arguments to plain error review.
demanding test.
Neither argument survives that
See United States v. Etienne, 772 F.3d 907, 913
(1st Cir. 2014) ("[U]nder plain error review, we have leeway to
correct only the most egregious of unpreserved errors." (quoting
United States v. Sánchez-Berríos, 424 F.3d 65, 73 (1st Cir.
2005))).
Indeed, we find no error at all in the sentence imposed.
Jean-Baptiste's initial argument, made for the first
time on appeal, amounts to a claim that the government failed to
lay a sufficient foundation for Officer Brown's experience and
ability to interpret drug jargon in the recordings.
But the
district
Brown's
court
was
entitled
to
1
consider
Officer
The district court based its drug quantity findings
exclusively on Officer Brown's testimony and on the wiretap
transcripts interpreted by Officer Brown at sentencing. The court
disclaimed any reliance on testimony by certain co-conspirators
who were cooperating with the government.
So we reject JeanBaptiste's cursory claim that the court erred by "fail[ing] to
assess the credibility" of those co-conspirators.
- 3 -
Case: 15-2441
Document: 00117110533
Page: 4
Date Filed: 01/26/2017
Entry ID: 6065231
interpretations of the conversations as lay opinion testimony, in
light of Officer Brown's law enforcement experience and extensive
personal involvement with the investigation.
See United States v.
Prange, 771 F.3d 17, 26 (1st Cir. 2014); Etienne, 772 F.3d at 917.
Jean-Baptiste's second argument -- that the district
court ought to have used a reasonable doubt standard -- takes him
no further.
judicial
It is firmly settled that the standard of proof for
factfinding
at
sentencing
is
preponderance
of
the
evidence, so long as the factfinding does not "increase the penalty
for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum."
United
States v. Platte, 577 F.3d 387, 391 (1st Cir. 2009); see also
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2163 (2013) ("We have
long recognized that broad sentencing discretion, informed by
judicial factfinding, does not violate the Sixth Amendment.").
The district court's drug quantity finding merely increased JeanBaptiste's
base
offense
level
under
the
Guidelines,
and
his
ultimate sentence of 78 months on each count was well below the
applicable statutory maximums.
See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)
(forty-year maximum); id. § 841(b)(1)(C) (twenty-year maximum).
Neither Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), nor Alleyne
is implicated by judicial factfinding that has no effect on the
range of punishment authorized by statute.
741 F.3d 217, 234 (1st Cir. 2013).
- 4 -
United States v. Doe,
Case: 15-2441
Document: 00117110533
Page: 5
Date Filed: 01/26/2017
Entry ID: 6065231
Finally, there is no merit to Jean-Baptiste's pro se
contention
that
"no
actual
evidence"
court's drug quantity finding.
reasonable
inferences
from
conversations in evidence.
supported
the
district
The court did not err by drawing
the
transcripts
of
the
wiretapped
See United States v. McDonald, 804
F.3d 497, 502–04 (1st Cir. 2015).
We affirm Jean-Baptiste's sentence.
- 5 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?