United States v. Aponte-Colon, 104 F.4th 402

Jean Carlos Aponte-Colón was arrested in Puerto Rico after a car accident, with police finding marijuana, heroin, pills, substantial cash, an AK-style pistol (classified as a machinegun), large amounts of ammunition, and numerous magazines in his vehicle.
Aponte pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute marijuana and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, under a plea agreement where both parties would seek upwardly variant sentences, higher than the federal sentencing guidelines recommend.
The government agreed to recommend 84 months for the firearm charge and a within-guidelines sentence (10–16 months) for the drug offense, and to dismiss other charges; Aponte would request the lower end for the drug charge, the government the upper end.
At sentencing, Aponte requested an aggregate 94-month sentence; the government requested 100 months, but the district court imposed 120 months, citing seriousness of the offenses, the nature of evidence, and the local context of gun violence.
On appeal, Aponte argued breach of the plea agreement, improper reliance on national origin/community-level factors, and procedural unreasonableness of the upward variance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Government breach of plea agreement	Gov’t undermined plea deal by focusing on community gun violence, inviting higher sentence	Gov’t adhered to the agreement, did not advocate for more, used context properly	No breach; gov’t substantially complied
Use of national origin in sentencing	Court improperly relied on Aponte’s Puerto Rican origin, or appeared to do so	Court focused on community-level deterrence, not national origin	No evidence sentence based on national origin
Procedural unreasonableness of sentence	Court did not adequately explain upward variance; used unreliable statistics	Court individualized assessment; justified variance	Court’s explanation sufficient; no procedural error

United States v. Lessard, 35 F.4th 37 (1st Cir. 2022) (sets strict standard for government compliance with plea agreements)
United States v. Clark, 55 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 1995) (explains meticulous standards for plea bargain enforcement)
United States v. Flores–Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (court may consider community/geographic factors for deterrence)
United States v. Rivera–González, 776 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2015) (appropriate to consider high incidence of violent crime at sentencing)
United States v. Dávila–González, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2010) (brevity in sentencing explanations does not equal inattention)
United States v. Ortiz-Pérez, 30 F.4th 107 (1st Cir. 2022) (court’s reasoning can be inferred from the record)