Bodily Injury Enhancement Under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(3)(A) Reversed

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has to Cotto-Negron argued at sentencing that he should not receive a two-level bodily injury enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2B3.1(b)(3)(A) because his co-defendant, the day before, was not sentenced with the enhancement and the facts of their cases were identical. This enhancement applies when “any victim sustained bodily injury” during the course of a robbery. The district court stated at Cotton-Negron’s sentencing that the facts of his case were different from that of his co-defendants. On appeal, the First Circuit reversed on procedural reasonableness grounds. United States v. Cotto-Negron, No. 14-1670 (1st Cir. 2017).

The First Circuit held that it could not find any “basis in the record for the court's conclusion that Cotton-Negron played a role in the Kmart robbery different from that of” his co-defendants. In so holding, the court noted that the factual summaries from each of the co-defendant’s cases were the same as Cotton-Negron’s.

The Government attempted to counter Cotton-Negron’s argument by asserting that the district court was still free to give Cotton-Negron the body injury enhancement even if the facts were the same. The First Circuit, while expressing no view on whether the court could have done this, held that the district court “may not justify that difference based upon clearly erroneous facts.” Accordingly, the case was remanded for re-sentencing.

About Brandon Sample

Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon’s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Recommended for you

Newsletter July 2nd, 2021

NEWSLETTER July 2, 2021 Welcome to the weekly edition of our newsletter. VIEWS ON THE LAW [-] Borden and 924(c) Whenever the Supreme Court invalidates part of a criminal statute, the question comes up about whether the Court’s reasoning could affect similar statutes and whether this opens the door for relief. The Court held in…

Read More about Newsletter July 2nd, 2021

Drug Treatment And Vocational Training Improper Sentencing Considerations

Christopher Thornton moved for a downward variance at sentencing arguing, among other things, that “in-prison treatment during the proposed thirty-eight months would help mitigate any potential risk he posed to the community.” The district court denied the motion, but in doing so said that Thornton had “mental-health issues, and he needs drug treatment” and that…

Read More about Drug Treatment And Vocational Training Improper Sentencing Considerations

Ex Parte Communications By Judge With Jury Required Reversal Of Convictions

At Martin Bradley III’s trial for racketeering, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, the district court had two ex parte communications with the jury. Bradley’s defense lawyers did not become aware of notes until after his appeal. Bradley filed a 2255 motion arguing, in addition to other things, that the court had violated Rule…

Read More about Ex Parte Communications By Judge With Jury Required Reversal Of Convictions