954 F.3d 379
1st Cir.2020Background
- Police stopped a car in Carolina, Puerto Rico; officers saw firearms and arrested the occupants. Two pistols found had been converted to machineguns; an extended magazine was found on Arce.
- A later search found a five-gallon bucket with over 300 containers of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia in the vehicle.
- A grand jury indicted Arce on three counts: § 924(c)(1)(A) (possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking), § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) (possession of a machinegun in furtherance), and § 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (possession with intent to distribute).
- Arce pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 3; Count 2 was dismissed. The plea agreement contemplated joint recommendations for Count 1 and a recommendation for Count 3 at the lower end of the Guidelines range.
- The PSR recited a post-arrest statement attributed to Arce that he had been “waiting for the opportunity” to “make you feel the pressure of the powerful,” which Arce denied and objected to; the district court overruled the objection as sufficiently reliable.
- The court sentenced Arce to 108 months on Count 1 and six months on Count 3 (consecutive). Arce appealed only the Count 3 sentence, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by relying on the PSR statement attributed to Arce | The statement was memorialized in a contemporaneous sworn affidavit, was detailed, and identified sources; PSR therefore bore sufficient indicia of reliability and Arce offered no countervailing proof | Arce denied making the statement and argued the PSR lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and did not state the affiant's source | No error: court may rely on PSR hearsay with indicia of trustworthiness; affidavit was contemporaneous, detailed, and identified sources; Arce offered no corroborating counterproof |
| Whether the six-month sentence on Count 3 was substantively unreasonable (should have been zero) | The within-Guidelines sentence was supported by the § 3553(a) factors, including danger to community and deterrence; within-range sentences carry a presumption of reasonableness | Arce argued mitigating facts (youth, no prior convictions, parties’ joint recommendation of zero months) warranted a zero-month sentence | No error: district court gave a plausible rationale, imposed a within-Guidelines term, and was not required to follow nonbinding joint recommendation; Arce failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Abreu-García, 933 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019) (framework for procedural/substantive reasonableness review and presumption for within-range sentences)
- United States v. Cyr, 337 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2003) (PSR generally bears sufficient indicia of reliability; defendant must produce countervailing proof to exclude PSR material)
- United States v. Phaneuf, 91 F.3d 255 (1st Cir. 1996) (district court may rely on sworn investigative affidavits at sentencing)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 336 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2003) (hearsay may be considered at sentencing if it has sufficient indicia of trustworthiness)
- United States v. Cortés-Medina, 819 F.3d 566 (1st Cir. 2016) (a within-Guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness)
- United States v. Llanos-Falero, 847 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2017) (to overcome presumption of reasonableness a defendant must produce fairly powerful mitigating reasons)