United States v. Bermudez-Melendez, 827 F.3d 160

Police executed a search warrant at Bermúdez-Meléndez's Guaynabo residence; he fled, fell and broke both legs; officers found powdered cocaine, crack, marijuana, an AK-47, a Glock, numerous magazines and ~270 rounds of ammunition.
A federal grand jury indicted him on four counts (drug offenses and a firearms count); he pleaded guilty only to Count 4: possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), with the other counts dismissed per plea agreement.
The plea agreement included a joint recommendation of 72 months' imprisonment; the statutory mandatory minimum for the § 924(c) conviction was 60 months.
The probation office identified the 60-month statutory minimum as the Guidelines sentence and noted no factors requiring an upward variance.
At sentencing, the district court rejected the parties’ 72-month recommendation and imposed a 90-month sentence (an upward variance of 30 months from the statutory 60-month sentence).
Defendant appealed, contending procedural and substantive sentencing error; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of appeal clause bars appeal	Government relied on plea-agreement waiver	Bermúdez-Meléndez argued appeal waiver applied	Court: Waiver invalid because sentence imposed did not conform to Agreement’s recommendation, so appeal proceeds
Adequacy of sentencing explanation under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)	Government: district court adequately identified main factors (weapons, ammo, magazines, drugs, deterrence)	Defendant: court failed to adequately explain upward variance and mischaracterized weapons	Court: Explanation was sufficient under plain-error review—identified discrete conduct and link to sentencing goals
Failure to individualize sentence / consider defendant’s history	Government: court considered defendant’s history and characteristics	Defendant: court did not properly weigh personal history and mitigating factors	Court: Record shows court considered history; disagreement is about weight, which is discretionary—no plain error
Substantive unreasonableness of upward variance	Government: 90 months justified by seriousness, arsenal, proximity to drugs, deterrence and defendant’s record	Defendant: sentence excessive, improperly relied on community violence concerns	Court: Sentence substantively reasonable; district court provided plausible rationale and did not abuse discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes two-step review for sentencing reasonableness and deference to district court variances)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (sentencing objectives guide reasonableness review)
Dávila-González v. United States, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2010) (practical approach to § 3553(c) explanation adequacy)
United States v. Vargas-García, 794 F.3d 162 (1st Cir. 2015) (treatment of statutory mandatory minimum as Guidelines sentence context)
United States v. Fernández-Cabrera, 625 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (sufficient explanation when record links discrete conduct to sentencing aims)
United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (district courts may consider community-based factors within limits)