United States v. Carrasquillo-Vilches, 33 F.4th 36

Background

In July 2019 Carrasquillo-Vilches moved to Puerto Rico and, falsely claiming to be a DHS official, induced a landlord to sign a 12‑month lease for an upscale apartment at $7,500/month (total $90,000) and a $7,500 security deposit.
The lease included a "Diplomatic Clause" making DHS liable; Carrasquillo forged DHS email/authorization and represented DHS would pay; he never delivered the security deposit or paid rent and a personal check for $22,500 bounced.
The landlord brought a civil eviction; DHS denied any relationship; Carrasquillo was evicted and a federal grand jury indicted him for impersonating a federal officer (18 U.S.C. § 912) and four counts of wire fraud; he pleaded guilty to all counts.
The PSI calculated intended loss at $90,000 (six‑level enhancement under USSG §2B1.1), yielding total offense level 13 and a Guidelines range of 12–18 months; the district court sentenced him to concurrent 18‑month terms and ordered $30,605.19 restitution (three months unpaid rent $22,500; security deposit $7,500; travel $605.19).
On appeal Carrasquillo challenged (1) the procedural calculation of intended loss, (2) the substantive reasonableness of the within‑GSR sentence, and (3) components of the restitution award.
The First Circuit affirmed the sentence, affirmed restitution as to rent and the security deposit, but reversed the $605.19 travel expense award and remanded for an amended restitution order.

Issues

Issue	United States' Argument	Carrasquillo‑Vilches' Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred procedurally by applying a six‑level enhancement for intended loss under USSG §2B1.1	Intended loss based on Carrasquillo's subjective intent to deprive the landlord of the full $90,000 supports the six‑level enhancement	PSI used an objective "reasonable and foreseeable" formulation; defendant never intended to default on entire lease and no evidence showed that intent	No reversible procedural error; even if $90,000 finding were erroneous, harmless error because record supports at least $45,000 intended loss (still triggers same six‑level increase)
Whether the 18‑month within‑GSR sentence was substantively unreasonable	Sentence within properly calculated GSR is reasonable given seriousness, deceit, and deterrence needs	Sentencing court should have given probation based on education, employment, family ties, and sentencing practices in the district	Affirmed: district court articulated a plausible rationale and the within‑range sentence was a defensible result
Whether the security deposit ($7,500) could be included in MVRA restitution	Lease permitted landlord to retain deposit on early departure; deposit is part of actual loss caused by defendant's fraud	Inclusion creates a windfall because landlord could recover unpaid rent and also keep deposit absent demonstrated damages	Affirmed: deposit properly included—no windfall given lease term allowing retention upon early termination
Whether landlord's $605.19 travel expenses for a civil eviction could be included in MVRA restitution	Initially argued includable as related‑proceeding expenses under MVRA	Travel expenses were incurred in a civil eviction, not criminal proceedings; therefore not compensable under MVRA	Reversed on this item: Lagos requires "related proceedings" to be criminal in nature; travel expenses ($605.19) must be removed; remand for amended restitution

Key Cases Cited

Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018) (MVRA "proceedings related to the offense" must be criminal in nature for travel/participation expenses to be recoverable)
Naphaeng v. United States, 906 F.3d 173 (1st Cir. 2018) (MVRA actual loss limited to pecuniary harm that would not have occurred but for the defendant's criminal activity)
Simon v. United States, 12 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2021) (restitution orders need only reasonably respond to reliable evidence; exactitude not required)
Innarelli v. United States, 524 F.3d 286 (1st Cir. 2008) (pre‑2015 First Circuit approach to intended loss used an objective standard)
Alphas v. United States, 785 F.3d 775 (1st Cir. 2015) (interpreting the earlier/objective intended‑loss framework)
Tavares v. United States, 705 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 2013) (harmless‑error doctrine applies to procedural sentencing errors)
Coombs v. United States, 857 F.3d 439 (1st Cir. 2017) (substantive‑reasonableness review asks whether district court articulated a plausible rationale and reached a defensible result)
Clogston v. United States, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (within‑Guidelines sentence is entitled to significant weight)