United States v. Angiolillo
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13093
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2007 Tracy Angiolillo traded $100 and small amounts of crack and heroin to an undercover agent for two semi-automatic firearms; he was arrested, Mirandized, and admitted the exchange.
- The government charged Angiolillo with being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and two counts of distribution (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)), and alleged application of the ACCA, which carries a 15-year mandatory minimum.
- Angiolillo pleaded guilty under a written plea agreement that included a waiver of appeal for any within-Guidelines sentence; the original PSI applied ACCA and produced a GSR of 188–235 months, and the district court imposed concurrent 188-month sentences.
- After Johnson (the ACCA residual-clause decision) and Welch (retroactivity), the government conceded ACCA no longer applied; the district court vacated the sentence and resentenced Angiolillo with a recalculated GSR (career-offender enhancement still applied) of 151–188 months.
- At resentencing the court imposed 120 months on count 1 (statutory cap) and concurrent 151-month terms on counts 2 and 3 (credit for time served). Angiolillo appealed, arguing substantive unreasonableness and contesting the appeal waiver’s scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea-agreement appeal waiver bars appeal of a resentencing | Angiolillo: waiver covers only the original sentence; it does not clearly waive appeals from later resentencings, so waiver should be construed narrowly and not applied here | Government: waiver language is broad and silent as to resentencing; it should cover within-range sentences imposed on resentencing | Court assumed (without deciding) waiver inapplicable to resentencing and reached the merits instead of resolving the novel waiver question |
| Whether the 151-month sentence (bottom of GSR) is substantively unreasonable | Angiolillo: mitigating factors (abuse/lead exposure in childhood, health/mental issues, prison mistreatment, age, rehabilitation) warrant a downward variance/time-served | Government/District Court: extensive criminal history (21 CH points), numerous in-custody disciplinary incidents, and public‑protection concerns justify a within‑range sentence at the low end | The court held the 151-month sentence was substantively reasonable: district court gave a plausible rationale and the result falls within the wide universe of reasonable sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vargas, 560 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (reference for sourcing facts from PSI and resentencing record)
- United States v. Dietz, 950 F.2d 50 (1st Cir. 1991) (same)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (right-to-counsel/Miranda warnings referenced for defendant’s post‑arrest admissions)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2552 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutional)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson is retroactive)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (framework for procedural and substantive sentencing review)
- United States v. Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir. 2015) (standard of abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (discusses district court’s discretion in weighing § 3553(a) factors)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (weight given to within-Guidelines sentences in substantive-reasonableness analysis)