United States v. Alejandro-Rosado, 878 F.3d 435

Alejandro-Rosado was convicted of receiving a firearm while under indictment, sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment and 3 years supervised release; release began January 15, 2015.
Between July 2015 and June 2016 he committed numerous supervised-release violations: multiple failed drug tests, observed handling a firearm and changing a magazine, selling cocaine, possession of synthetic marijuana and prescription pills, canine alerts for weapons, and a search that revealed more drugs and a notebook with inmate names, register numbers, and monetary notations (including a threatening entry).
Probation filed nine violation reports; defendant admitted the violations at the revocation hearing.
Guidelines (U.S.S.G. §7B1.4) produced a Grade B range of 4–10 months (Criminal History I); the government sought the statutory maximum 24 months; the district court imposed 24 months.
District court expressly acknowledged the guidelines and mitigating arguments (health, misunderstanding, acceptance of responsibility), but imposed an upward-variance to reflect seriousness, promote respect for law, provide punishment, deter, and protect the public.
On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed, finding the district court’s procedure and substantive reasoning reasonable and the 24-month sentence within the universe of reasonable outcomes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness of sentence (failure to consider mitigating factors; justification for upward variance)	Government: district court followed required procedure, allowed argument, and considered §3553(a) factors	Alejandro-Rosado: court failed adequately to consider mitigating factors and improperly varied upward from guideline range	Court: no plain error — district court heard and acknowledged mitigating arguments and gave a plausible, coherent rationale for upward variance
Substantive reasonableness of 24‑month sentence (within "universe of reasonable sentences")	Government: sentence defensible given the severity, frequency, and proximity of violations to release	Alejandro-Rosado: guideline range (4–10 months) was appropriate and 24 months was excessive	Court: sentence was substantively reasonable — within the universe of reasonable sentences and plausibly reasoned for punishment, deterrence, and public protection

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural framework for sentencing)
United States v. Márquez-García, 862 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 2017) (upholding 24-month revocation sentence above guideline range)
United States v. Soto-Soto, 855 F.3d 445 (1st Cir. 2017) (statutory maximum reasonable where violations were repetitive and severe)
United States v. Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir. 2015) (no plain error where court acknowledged mitigating arguments)
United States v. Guzman-Fernandez, 824 F.3d 173 (1st Cir. 2016) (upward variance requires a plausible and coherent rationale)
United States v. Del Valle–Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171 (1st Cir. 2014) (appellate deference to district court sentencing choices)