Criminal – 21-year-old MS-13 gang member receives five mandatory life sentences

Where the evidence supported an MS-13 gang member’s multiple convictions, including for his role in multiple murders, and his five mandatory life sentences did not violate the Eighth Amendment, his convictions and sentence were affirmed.

Background

This case stems from murders and an attempted murder committed by the Mara Salvatrucha gang’s Uniones Locos Salvatrucha, or ULS, clique. The government indicted eight defendants for their roles in these crimes. After pleas, one proceeded to trial: Elmer de Jesus Alas Candray. He was convicted on all 14 counts.

Sufficiency

Alas Candray argues that the government failed to prove racketeering activities for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. This court disagrees; there is extensive evidence connecting him to Kevin Abarco Choto’s murder.

ULS’s first-in-command directed Alas Candray to stay with Choto leading up to the murder and specified which ULS members should commit the murder. Consistent with that plan, Alas Candray and Choto went to get dinner for the group and, after the meal, Alas Candray and others went into the backyard while ULS members killed Choto. Afterward, Alas Candray helped dismember and dispose of Choto’s body.

Alas Candray insists that the government’s reliance on his involvement in the murder cannot stand because he was outside during the murder. But a defendant can conspire to violate RICO without himself committing or agreeing to commit the underlying acts of racketeering activity.

For Alas Candray’s role in murdering Jose Guillen Mejia, the jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering activity and murder in aid of racketeering activity. The testimony was that ULS members — including Alas Candray — originally planned on murdering a target identified by their leadership. When that plan fell through, they formed a new plan which led to the murder of Mejia.

With respect to Iris Janet Ponce Garcia’s murder, the jury convicted Alas Candray of conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering activity and murder in aid of racketeering activity. Vasquez testified that Lozano shot her first and that, at some point after that, Alas Candray also shot her. Although Alas Candray notes the absence of physical evidence, the absence of physical evidence is not evidence of physical absence.

Moving on to the plot to kill Flaco, the jury convicted Alas Candray of conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering activity. Alas Candray’s message requesting to target Flaco is substantial evidence supporting his conviction.

For his role in murdering Lemos, the jury convicted Alas Candray of conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering activity and murder in aid of racketeering activity. Although Melendez and Lozano were not present for Lemos’s murder, they testified that Alas Candray confessed his role in that murder to them.

With respect to Pineda’s murder, Lozano testified that four of the men attacked him and that the final blow came from Alas Candray and another ULS member, who dropped a stone on Pineda’s head. Vasquez testified that he drove Alas Candray to Reston on the night of the murder and afterward learned that they killed Pineda using rocks.

For Alas Candray’s role in the murder of Avelar, Alas Candray argues the testimony of the witnesses was contradictory. But even if Alas Candray is correct, this court must assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in testimony in favor of the prosecution.

Sentencing

Alas Candray next argues that his five mandatory life sentences violate the Eighth Amendment. But his argument on this point is squarely foreclosed by this court’s precedent. By Alas Candray’s own admission, he was 21 years old when he committed the earliest murder underlying those convictions. This court has adopted a bright line at the age of eighteen in the imposition of these serious penalties, and Alas Candray falls on the constitutionally permissible side of that line.

Affirmed.

United States v. Alas Candray, Case No. 25-4063, June 2, 2026. 4th Cir. (Agee), from EDVA at Alexandria (Nachmanoff). Andrew M. Stewart for Appellant. Todd Blanche, Lindsey Halligan, Megan C. Braun, Natasha Smalky, Daniel J. Honold, Robert K. McBride and John C. Blanchard for Appellee. VLW 026-2-199. 24 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-2-199