25-854-cr United States v. Candelier Tejada
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of February, two thousand twenty-six.
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ALISON J. NATHAN, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v. No. 25-854-cr
Juan Gregorio Candelier Tejada,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________________ FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: ALEXEI SCHACHT, Alexei Schacht, Attorney at Law, New York, NY.
FOR APPELLEE: ANDREW K. CHAN (Jacob R. Fiddelman, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Engelmayer, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Background
From 2012 to 2017, Defendant-Appellant Juan Gregorio Candelier Tejada
distributed dozens of kilograms of cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl in New York City.
In 2014, Candelier joined a drug-trafficking organization (DTO) led by Julio
Rondon-Abreu and Manuel Enrique De La Cruz. Rondon-Abreu and De La Cruz
arranged for the DTO to smuggle heroin and fentanyl through individual couriers
who swallowed drugs, as well as in containers aboard commercial ships.
2 Candelier would receive narcotics from the higher-ups, distribute them, and
collect cash proceeds that were eventually laundered by others who bought and
sold cars in the Dominican Republic.
On October 12, 2017, Candelier was arrested after law enforcement observed
him making a suspicious delivery in Manhattan. He had 20 grams of heroin on
him at the time, and a consensual, post-arrest search of his apartment revealed 2.8
kilograms more. Candelier was released on bail shortly thereafter, and then on
February 15, 2018, was charged by information with one count of conspiracy to
distribute narcotics—particularly, heroin and fentanyl—in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A).
On April 2, 2018, Candelier pled guilty to that count and agreed to cooperate
with the Government. 1 In exchange, the Government agreed to seek a reduction
in Candelier’s sentence under Section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, if
Candelier complied with his plea agreement and committed no further crimes. 2
1 The district court docket shows that Candelier pled guilty on March 30, 2018. The Presentence Report states that Candelier pled guilty on April 2, 2018. The discrepancy is irrelevant to the present appeal. 2 That section provides, in part, that “[u]pon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense, a sentence that is below the otherwise
3 Less than a week later, the Government learned from a confidential
informant that Candelier had continued to sell drugs while on bail; in response,
the Government requested that he appear for a meeting at the United States
Attorney’s Office in Manhattan on April 6, 2018. Candelier did not show up to
that meeting or the bail-revocation hearing that the district court ordered him to
attend later in the day. Instead, he fled the jurisdiction and remained a fugitive
until he was arrested six years later, on February 17, 2024, carrying
methamphetamine, firearms, and a fake ID out of a drug stash house in North
Carolina. He was returned to the Southern District of New York and detained
without bail on consent.
On April 4, 2025, after receiving the parties’ sentencing submissions and a
recommendation from the Probation Department, the district court sentenced
Candelier principally to 150 months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years
of supervised release. The district court calculated Candelier’s Sentencing
Guidelines offense level to be 34—comprising a base offense level of 36, a two-
point increase for obstruction of justice, a two-point decrease for being a Zero-
applicable guideline range may be appropriate.” U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1.
4 Point Offender, and an additional two-point decrease under the Guidelines’
safety-valve provision. 3 See U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(b)(18), 5C1.2. The district court
then proceeded through the sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
noting at the outset that Candelier’s significant and prolonged distribution of
deadly narcotics, coupled with his subsequent flight and return to drug dealing
after agreeing to cooperate, weighed in favor of a significant sentence. But the
district court also credited Candelier’s guilty plea—owning up to his offense and
sparing the Government the difficulty and expense of trial—as well his family’s
support. Considering all of the required factors and the record, the district court
determined that 150 months of imprisonment was “the lowest that . . . is
compatible with the [§] 3553(a) factors viewed in combination.” App’x at 114.
The district court also imposed mandatory, standard, and special conditions of
supervised release.
Candelier timely appealed, challenging only the length of his sentence of
incarceration.
3 The district court denied Candelier’s request for a reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility, which Candelier does not contest on appeal.
5 Discussion
We review the district court’s imposition of a sentence “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In
doing so, “we take into account the totality of the circumstances, giving due
deference to the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion, and bearing in mind the
institutional advantages of district courts.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180,
190 (2d Cir. 2008). “[I]n the overwhelming majority of cases, a Guidelines
sentence will fall comfortably within the broad range of sentences that are
reasonable.” United States v. Lawrence, 139 F.4th 115, 123 (2d Cir. 2025) (quotation
marks omitted and alteration adopted). Thus, “while a district court cannot
assume that a Guidelines sentence is warranted in a particular case,” it is only in
the “extraordinary” case that the district court abuses its discretion in affording
any weight to Guidelines factors. United States v. Broxmeyer,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
25-854-cr United States v. Candelier Tejada
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of February, two thousand twenty-six.
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ALISON J. NATHAN, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v. No. 25-854-cr
Juan Gregorio Candelier Tejada,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________________ FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: ALEXEI SCHACHT, Alexei Schacht, Attorney at Law, New York, NY.
FOR APPELLEE: ANDREW K. CHAN (Jacob R. Fiddelman, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Engelmayer, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Background
From 2012 to 2017, Defendant-Appellant Juan Gregorio Candelier Tejada
distributed dozens of kilograms of cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl in New York City.
In 2014, Candelier joined a drug-trafficking organization (DTO) led by Julio
Rondon-Abreu and Manuel Enrique De La Cruz. Rondon-Abreu and De La Cruz
arranged for the DTO to smuggle heroin and fentanyl through individual couriers
who swallowed drugs, as well as in containers aboard commercial ships.
2 Candelier would receive narcotics from the higher-ups, distribute them, and
collect cash proceeds that were eventually laundered by others who bought and
sold cars in the Dominican Republic.
On October 12, 2017, Candelier was arrested after law enforcement observed
him making a suspicious delivery in Manhattan. He had 20 grams of heroin on
him at the time, and a consensual, post-arrest search of his apartment revealed 2.8
kilograms more. Candelier was released on bail shortly thereafter, and then on
February 15, 2018, was charged by information with one count of conspiracy to
distribute narcotics—particularly, heroin and fentanyl—in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A).
On April 2, 2018, Candelier pled guilty to that count and agreed to cooperate
with the Government. 1 In exchange, the Government agreed to seek a reduction
in Candelier’s sentence under Section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, if
Candelier complied with his plea agreement and committed no further crimes. 2
1 The district court docket shows that Candelier pled guilty on March 30, 2018. The Presentence Report states that Candelier pled guilty on April 2, 2018. The discrepancy is irrelevant to the present appeal. 2 That section provides, in part, that “[u]pon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense, a sentence that is below the otherwise
3 Less than a week later, the Government learned from a confidential
informant that Candelier had continued to sell drugs while on bail; in response,
the Government requested that he appear for a meeting at the United States
Attorney’s Office in Manhattan on April 6, 2018. Candelier did not show up to
that meeting or the bail-revocation hearing that the district court ordered him to
attend later in the day. Instead, he fled the jurisdiction and remained a fugitive
until he was arrested six years later, on February 17, 2024, carrying
methamphetamine, firearms, and a fake ID out of a drug stash house in North
Carolina. He was returned to the Southern District of New York and detained
without bail on consent.
On April 4, 2025, after receiving the parties’ sentencing submissions and a
recommendation from the Probation Department, the district court sentenced
Candelier principally to 150 months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years
of supervised release. The district court calculated Candelier’s Sentencing
Guidelines offense level to be 34—comprising a base offense level of 36, a two-
point increase for obstruction of justice, a two-point decrease for being a Zero-
applicable guideline range may be appropriate.” U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1.
4 Point Offender, and an additional two-point decrease under the Guidelines’
safety-valve provision. 3 See U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(b)(18), 5C1.2. The district court
then proceeded through the sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
noting at the outset that Candelier’s significant and prolonged distribution of
deadly narcotics, coupled with his subsequent flight and return to drug dealing
after agreeing to cooperate, weighed in favor of a significant sentence. But the
district court also credited Candelier’s guilty plea—owning up to his offense and
sparing the Government the difficulty and expense of trial—as well his family’s
support. Considering all of the required factors and the record, the district court
determined that 150 months of imprisonment was “the lowest that . . . is
compatible with the [§] 3553(a) factors viewed in combination.” App’x at 114.
The district court also imposed mandatory, standard, and special conditions of
supervised release.
Candelier timely appealed, challenging only the length of his sentence of
incarceration.
3 The district court denied Candelier’s request for a reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility, which Candelier does not contest on appeal.
5 Discussion
We review the district court’s imposition of a sentence “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In
doing so, “we take into account the totality of the circumstances, giving due
deference to the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion, and bearing in mind the
institutional advantages of district courts.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180,
190 (2d Cir. 2008). “[I]n the overwhelming majority of cases, a Guidelines
sentence will fall comfortably within the broad range of sentences that are
reasonable.” United States v. Lawrence, 139 F.4th 115, 123 (2d Cir. 2025) (quotation
marks omitted and alteration adopted). Thus, “while a district court cannot
assume that a Guidelines sentence is warranted in a particular case,” it is only in
the “extraordinary” case that the district court abuses its discretion in affording
any weight to Guidelines factors. United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 290 (2d
Cir. 2012). And though we have a “responsibility to examine the actual sentence”
rather than merely “rubber stamp” it, substantive review does not permit
“tinkering with any sentence that appellate judges simply do not like.” United
States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 122–23 (2d Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted).
6 In this deferential posture, we cannot conclude that the district court
imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Candelier was sentenced to 150
months’ imprisonment—one month short of the bottom of the Guidelines range for
his offense conduct and circumstances. And his argument that the district court
failed to sufficiently credit his initial cooperation is belied by the record. As the
district court explained, Candelier continued drug dealing during and after his
purported “cooperation”—having learned additional information about the
DEA’s investigations and tactics through his experience as a cooperator. If
anything, the district court observed, the Guidelines underestimated Candelier’s
culpability by rewarding him for having no criminal history points, even though
he had dealt drugs for more than a decade and immediately recidivated after
pleading guilty. It was thus not unreasonable for the district court to conclude
that a significant sentence would be required to reflect the seriousness of the
offense and promote respect for the law, as well as specific deterrence, given
Candelier’s absconding and returning to drug dealing under a false identity for
nearly six years. It was also not unreasonable for the district court to conclude
that a significant sentence was required to deter future cooperators from similarly
risking noncompliance with their plea agreements only to abscond upon facing
7 accountability. For these reasons, any disparity among Candelier and the other
cooperator defendants is warranted; only he continued to deal drugs, fled the
jurisdiction, and committed more crimes as a fugitive for many years.
In sum, Candelier’s below-Guidelines sentence is not substantively
unreasonable. Instead, it reflects the seriousness of Candelier’s many years of
dangerous criminal conduct, the need to deter him and others from committing
similar crimes in the future, and the benefits of complying with agreements to
cooperate.
Conclusion
Because Candelier’s sentence is substantively reasonable and he raises no
other challenge on appeal, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court