Skip to main content

United States v. Lira: Mandatory Minimum sentence enhancement requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Lira appealed his 120-month mandatory minimum sentence imposed following his jury trial conviction for use or carrying and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He was convicted in Counts I-III of possession and distribution of meth, and the District Court found by a preponderance of the evidence in Count IV that Lira discharged a firearm “during and in relation to or in furtherance” of a drug trafficking offense, which triggered the 10 year mandatory minimum consecutive sentence.
Lira appealed his 120-month mandatory minimum sentence imposed following his jury trial conviction for use or carrying and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He was convicted in Counts I-III of possession and distribution of meth, and the District Court found by a preponderance of the evidence in Count IV that Lira discharged a firearm “during and in relation to or in furtherance” of a drug trafficking offense, which triggered the 10 year mandatory minimum consecutive sentence.
•On Appeal, Lira challenged the imposition of the 10 year sentence. At his sentencing, the law was Harris v United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (which held that discharge of firearm could be found by judge by preponderance of evidence); rule was reconsidered in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) and overruled.
•Alleyne held that “facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury” and established “beyond a reasonable doubt.” 
•The government conceded that Lira’s sentence on Count IV didn’t comport with Alleyne because the increased mandatory minimum sentence was based on a fact found by the district court by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Ninth ordered the district court to reexamine the entire sentence in light of the vacated sentence on Count IV.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Second Circuit Holds that Personal Benefit is Not Required for Insider Trading

Insider trading, or “ securities fraud ,” is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1348 and 15 U.S.C. § 10(b) As the Supreme Court explained in Dirks v. SEC , someone engages in insider trading under §10(b) if they breach a fiduciary duty by disclosing material, nonpublic information in exchange for a personal benefit. However, the Second Circuit’s recent holding in United States v. Blaszczak rejected this personal benefit requirement, at least as it relates to § 1348. The result? The range of conduct that triggers criminal liability under § 1348 is far bigger than the range of conduct that triggers liability under § 10(b). Stated another way, Blaszczak makes it easier for federal prosecutors to go after Title 18 securities fraud because - unlike Title 15 securities fraud - they do no need to prove the existence of a personal benefit.
Post a Comment
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court Eases Rules for Miranda Warning

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Maryland v. Shatzer . Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, which six other Justices joined in full. Justice Thomas concurred in part and concurred in the judgment; Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment. The Court held that a fourteen-day break in custodial interrogation ends the Edwards v. Arizona rule which states that once a suspect invokes his Miranda rights, any subsequent waiver of the right triggered by a police request is deemed involuntary and is the result of coercion. In reversing the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals, the Court concluded that Shatzer’s return to his normal pre-interrogation life in the general prison population for a period of two-and-one-half years before re-interrogation constituted a sufficient break in custody enable him to voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. Therefore, the Edwards case did not require that Shatzer’s re-interrogation statements be suppressed, and the Court remanded the case ...
Post a Comment
Read more

California Supreme Court Narrows Exception to the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Requirement

On November 25, 2019, the California Supreme Court overturned a 17-year-old exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. People v. Lopez holds “that the desire to obtain a driver’s identification following a traffic stop does not constitute an independent, categorical exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.” People v. Lopez , No. S238627, 2019 WL 6267367, at *1 (Cal. Nov. 25, 2019). Before Lopez , police were “allowed … to conduct warrantless vehicle searches for personal identification documents at traffic stops when the driver failed to provide … personal identification upon request.” Id . The Court summarized the facts of Lopez as follows: police “responded to an anonymous tip concerning erratic driving.” Police were “(u)nable to locate the vehicle,” so they “asked dispatch to run a computer search of the license plate.” Police “then drove by the address where the car was registered,” but didn’t see a car matching the description. As such, p...
Post a Comment
Read more