United States v. Castillo-Torres, 8 F.4th 68

Background

Castillo pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326); Sentencing Guidelines range was 8–14 months; Castillo sought time served and the government recommended 6 months.
The PSR included allegations from a Puerto Rico criminal complaint that Castillo brandished a knife, cut the victim, and threatened to kill him; Castillo objected, noting he pleaded only to felony possession of a bladed weapon and that assault/threat misdemeanors were dropped.
Probation amended the PSR to state the paragraphs merely parroted the criminal complaint and did not reflect the probation officer’s position; Castillo persisted in his objection.
The district court nonetheless treated the complaint allegations as true (finding threats, weapon use, and a cut) and imposed an eight-month sentence (bottom of Guidelines range).
The First Circuit held the complaint allegations were uncorroborated and unreliable hearsay, so the district court abused its discretion by relying on them to support sentencing findings; the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing (same judge), with an expedited mandate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a district court rely on allegations in a criminal complaint (not admitted, not convicted) to support sentencing findings?	Complaint allegations are permissible evidence; here they showed violent conduct.	A bare complaint is unreliable; Castillo only pled to possession and assault/threats were dismissed.	No; a bare criminal complaint without other indicia of reliability cannot support sentencing findings by a preponderance.
Is the reliability standard looser for within-Guidelines sentences than for upward variances?	Yes — less reason to exclude such information when sentence remains within Guidelines.	No — the unreliability of the information is the same regardless of the enhancement context.	No; the same concern about unreliable allegations applies whether used for departures/variances or to inform a within-Guidelines sentence.
Was the district court's reliance on the complaint harmless error?	The sentence would stand because other sentencing evidence supported the term imposed.	The court’s emphasis on the complaint materially affected sentencing.	Not harmless; the record shows the court gave substantial weight to the unsupported allegations, so vacatur and remand are required.
Should resentencing be before a different judge?	Keep same judge; no extreme circumstances shown.	Request a different judge for independence.	Denied; new judge not required absent very unusual circumstances, and the original judge properly applied § 3553(a) apart from the error.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Colón-Maldonado, 953 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020) (criminal complaint is an accusation and may be unreliable without indicia of trustworthiness)
United States v. Rondón-García, 886 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2018) (courts may not infer unlawful behavior from mere charges absent proof by a preponderance)
United States v. Díaz-Lugo, 963 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2020) (arrest records alone are insufficient to prove conduct at sentencing without reliable indication)
United States v. Marrero-Pérez, 914 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2019) (arrests not backed by conviction or independent proof should receive no weight at sentencing)
United States v. Dávila-Bonilla, 968 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020) (criminal-complaint reliability scrutinized in sentencing context)
United States v. Morgan, 384 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (preponderance of the evidence standard governs sentencing factual findings)
United States v. Luciano, 414 F.3d 174 (1st Cir. 2005) (review of whether sentencing findings meet preponderance standard is for clear error)
United States v. Arce-Calderon, 954 F.3d 379 (1st Cir. 2020) (PSR statements can sometimes be reliable enough to support sentencing findings)
United States v. Amirault, 224 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2000) (uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing only if admitted or reliably proven)
Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (1992) (harmless-error framework for sentencing challenges)