Yandrey Negrin Rojas was charged with conspiracy to transport and harbor aliens for profit, multiple counts of transporting aliens for profit, conspiracy to commit hostage taking, and multiple counts of hostage taking. He pleaded guilty to the smuggling counts but went to trial on the hostage-taking charges, where he was acquitted of all counts related to hostage taking. At sentencing, the district court applied several enhancements to the base offense level, including a four-level enhancement for firearm brandishing and enhancements for the number of victims and vulnerable victims. Rojas argued that these enhancements were improperly based on the conduct for which he had been acquitted, claiming this violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The district court sentenced him to 97 months, the top of the advisory guideline range.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the constitutional claim de novo. The court reaffirmed the long-standing rule established in United States v. Watts and applied in the circuit in United States v. Faust: relevant conduct for which a defendant was acquitted may still be considered at sentencing, provided the government proves that conduct by a preponderance of the evidence. The court noted that while Amendment 826 to the Sentencing Guidelines, effective in November 2024, now excludes acquitted conduct from the definition of relevant conduct, the amendment is not retroactive. Therefore, the court applied the law in effect at the time of sentencing. The court found no error in the district court's application of enhancements, noting that the district court explicitly stated it did not rely on acquitted conduct and that Rojas had admitted to the underlying facts in his presentence investigation report. The court emphasized that only the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn its own precedent, and Rojas had not successfully argued that Watts was wrongly decided in a way that would bind this court.
The decision reinforces the ability of federal sentencing courts to consider acquitted conduct when applying sentencing enhancements, provided the conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence. It clarifies that Amendment 826 does not apply retroactively to cases already sentenced, leaving the Watts standard intact for current and past cases. The 97-month sentence for Rojas remains in effect, and the ruling serves as a reminder that a jury's acquittal on specific charges does not preclude a judge from factoring that same conduct into the final sentence if the evidence supports it.