SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(US)(ca1) 106

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
United States – Appellant
Versus
Soto-Sanchez – Respondent



No. 24-1184

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

VICTOR SOTO-SANCHEZ, a/k/a Newton Batista, a/k/a Hooka,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Lance E. Walker, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Barron, Chief Judge, Montecalvo, and Rikelman, Circuit Judges.

Edward Crane for appellant.

Brian S. Kleinbord, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Darcie N. McElwee, United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.

May 27, 2025 RIKELMAN, Circuit Judge. Victor Soto-Sanchez appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance with an intent to distribute. He argues that his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was violated when the district court permitted a police officer to testify at trial about the substance of an informant's tip. Soto-Sanchez also claims that the district court erred in applying a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice in determining his sentence.

Although we agree with Soto-Sanchez that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated, we conclude that the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence against him. Nevertheless, we reiterate that the government cannot avoid the requirements of the Confrontation Clause by labeling improper testimony as mere background context. We also reject Soto-Sanchez's sentencing challenge. We conclude that he has waived his legal and factual arguments related to his claim that only conduct that independently violates federal law can qualify as "unlawful influence" under section 3C1.1 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Thus, we affirm his conviction and sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

Because Soto-Sanchez does not challenge the sufficiency of the government's evidence against him at trial, we recite the facts in a "balanced" manner and "objectively view[] the evidence

- 2 - of record." United States v. Velazquez-Fontanez, 6 F.4th 205, 212 (1st Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Amador-Huggins, 799 F.3d 124, 127 (1st Cir. 2015)).

A. Investigation

In late 2021, Detective Duane Cloutier of the Waterville Police Department received a phone call from a confidential informant who wanted to provide a tip on a "large-scale drug dealer" in Waterville, Maine, in exchange for leniency for another individual with pending charges. The informant described the alleged drug dealer as a Dominican man in his mid-30s who sold "large quantities" of three types of fentanyl and crack cocaine; lived in an apartment on College Avenue with Jasmine Dostie, who drove a white BMW; and had firearms in his residence.

After receiving this information, law enforcement officers conducted various checks on Jasmine Dostie to confirm that she drove a white BMW and lived at 185 College Avenue, Unit 1. The officers then used the informant to conduct two controlled buys of fentanyl from that apartment and determined that a man matching Soto-Sanchez's description was involved in the sales. In addition, the officers conducted surveillance and additional checks to confirm that Soto-Sanchez was associated with the 185 College Avenue address.

Based on the investigation, surveillance, and controlled buys, the officers applied for and received a search warrant for

- 3 - Soto-Sanche

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top