United States v. Carmona-Alomar, 109 F.4th 60

Ángel Manuel Carmona-Alomar was convicted in 2017 for unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and unlawful possession of a machinegun, serving 30 months' imprisonment and 3 years' supervised release.
In 2020, while on supervised release, Carmona was again found possessing a machinegun, leading to a new federal indictment for similar offenses.
He pleaded guilty to the new charges, and probation determined his guidelines range was 37–46 months.
The district court imposed a 60-month sentence for the new offenses and a consecutive 2-year term for violating supervised release, both above guideline ranges.
Carmona appealed, arguing the sentences were both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

Issue	Carmona's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness—misunderstanding of law	District court misunderstood 'mine-run' machinegun cases as excluding those with criminal history	Statement considered in context; focus was on distinguishing from precedent where defendants had less serious histories	District court correctly distinguished Carmona's recidivism as case-specific
Procedural reasonableness—double-counting factors	Court impermissibly relied on factors already in guidelines (e.g., prior conviction, supervised release)	Guidelines don't specifically account for prior identical machinegun convictions; court also cited additional case-specific factors	No procedural error; recidivism as to exact offense supported upward variance
Procedural reasonableness—community-based factors	Reliance on Puerto Rico gun violence rates was improperly generic for 'mere possession' case	Court tied community concerns to Carmona’s repeat conduct and specific disregard of law	Reliance on community concerns was justified by Carmona’s case-specific repeated offense
Substantive reasonableness—excessive upward variance	Sentence not supported by adequate reasons for extent of variance	Record shows case-specific, plausible rationale: recidivism, lack of remorse, deterrence	Sentence was within the range of reasonableness, no abuse of discretion

United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (community-based factors may inform needs for deterrence if case-specific)
United States v. Rivera-Berríos, 968 F.3d 130 (1st Cir. 2020) (upward variance not justified by generic concerns alone for simple possession)
United States v. Carrasquillo-Sánchez, 9 F.4th 56 (1st Cir. 2021) (variance requires case-specific reasoning beyond general firearm danger)
United States v. García-Pérez, 9 F.4th 48 (1st Cir. 2021) (court must explain why specific possession warrants extra sentencing weight)
United States v. Pedroza-Orengo, 817 F.3d 829 (1st Cir. 2016) (upward variance for recidivist firearm offenses affirmed)