Fernandez v. United States

Background

Carlos Fernandez was convicted of two drug conspiracy counts (one to distribute and possess cocaine under §841(a)(1) and one to import cocaine under §952(a)), one count of running a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) under §848, and five counts of using a telephone to help drug crimes under §843(b). On appeal he argued that the conspiracy convictions should be vacated because they were predicate offenses for the CCE conviction and would amount to cumulative punishment.

Reasoning

The central question was whether courts must vacate conspiracy convictions that serve as predicates for a CCE conviction to avoid punishing the same wrongdoing more than once. The Third Circuit affirmed Fernandez’s convictions and acknowledged that other Courts of Appeals disagree. Some circuits require vacating the predicate conspiracy conviction (examples from the 10th, 9th, and 8th Circuits), the Second Circuit uses a “combining” approach to impose a single sentence, and the Seventh Circuit allows the predicate convictions and concurrent sentences to stand. The Supreme Court declined to review the case; Justice White, joined by Justices Blackmun and O’Connor, dissented from that denial and would have granted review.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court denied review, the disagreement among appellate courts remains unresolved. Defendants facing both conspiracy and CCE convictions may get different results depending on the circuit handling their appeal, including the risk of cumulative punishment in some circuits but not others. The dissenting Justices urged the Court to take the case to eliminate this inconsistency.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White wrote the dissent from the denial of review, joined by Justices Blackmun and O’Connor, arguing that the evident disarray among Courts of Appeals justified granting review to resolve the issue.