United States v. Acevedo-Vazquez, 977 F.3d 85

On October 7, 2016, Leonardo Acevedo-Vázquez carjacked a Cadillac Escalade at gunpoint in Bayamón, Puerto Rico; he pled guilty to carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119) and to using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
At sentencing Acevedo-Vázquez was already serving a 30-year Commonwealth of Puerto Rico sentence; the government agreed to recommend that any federal time run concurrently but the district court imposed a different disposition.
The PSR recommended 70–87 months for the carjacking under the Guidelines; Acevedo-Vázquez sought the low end concurrent to the Commonwealth sentence and the statutory minimum five years for the § 924(c) count to run consecutively.
The district court imposed 87 months for the carjacking to run consecutively to the Commonwealth sentence, stated it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, and explained the sentence by reference to the offense’s violence and public-protection concerns; it also imposed five years for the firearm offense and five years of supervised release.
Defense preserved objections to procedural and substantive reasonableness, emphasizing Acevedo-Vázquez’s addiction, ADHD, depression, history of abandonment, and need for treatment and education programs.
On appeal Acevedo-Vázquez argued the district court (1) procedurally erred by failing to consider factors warranting partial concurrency and (2) imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court procedurally erred in ordering the federal sentence to run consecutively rather than considering § 3553(a) and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 factors	Government: district court expressly considered § 3553(a) factors and explained its decision; no procedural error	Acevedo-Vázquez: court failed to meaningfully consider circumstances supporting a partially concurrent sentence and thus abandoned discretion	Held: No procedural error — court explicitly stated it considered § 3553(a), referenced relevant programs, and explained the choice for consecutive service
Whether the aggregate sentence was substantively unreasonable	Government: sentence within Guidelines range and justified by violent nature of offense and need to protect public	Acevedo-Vázquez: sentence excessive given mental health, addiction, rehabilitative needs, and existing Commonwealth sentence	Held: Substantively reasonable — sentence falls within expansive range of reasonable outcomes and reflects a plausible, defensible rationale

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (two-step review for sentencing: procedural then substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Arroyo-Maldonado, 791 F.3d 193 (1st Cir. 2015) (standard of review for preserved vs. unpreserved sentencing objections)
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (district court’s statement that it considered § 3553(a) suffices where explanation supports outcome)
United States v. Caballero-Vázquez, 896 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2018) (upholding consecutive service where district court explained § 3553(a) considerations)
United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305 (1st Cir. 2014) (substantive review asks whether sentence reflects a plausible rationale)
United States v. Vargas-Dávila, 649 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2011) (deference to district courts on the range of reasonable sentences)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (district courts’ institutional advantages in sentencing)
United States v. Madera-Ortiz, 637 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011) (recognizing district court latitude in individualized sentencing determinations)