United States v. Cortes-Medina
819 F.3d 566
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Héctor Cortés‑Medina pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a protected location; parties entered a non‑binding plea agreement in which the government agreed to recommend 121 months if his CHC was IV or lower.
- The PSI recommended total offense level 30, CHC IV, and a Guidelines range (GSR) of 135–168 months; neither party objected to the PSI.
- At sentencing the government urged the agreed 121‑month recommendation, but the district court reviewed Cortés‑Medina’s criminal history (including multiple dismissed or acquitted charges listed in the PSI), expressed skepticism about the lack of follow‑up on those charges, adopted the PSI calculations, and imposed 168 months (top of range).
- The plea agreement’s appeal waiver did not bar appeal because the court imposed a higher sentence than the agreement recommended.
- On appeal Cortés‑Medina argued (1) the court improperly relied on dismissed/acquitted charges without proof by a preponderance; (2) the court failed adequately to consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; (3) the court failed to comply with § 3553(c)’s explanation requirement; and (4) the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
- The First Circuit majority affirmed, applying plain‑error review to the unpreserved challenge about reliance on unproven charges but finding no plain error; it rejected the other procedural claims and held the within‑range sentence substantively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of dismissed/acquitted charges at sentencing | Court may consider them only if proven by a preponderance; failure to do so was error | Court relied on PSI and arrests only to assess placement within GSR, and prior dicta permits inferring a pattern from repeated arrests | Unpreserved below → plain‑error review; no plain error found because precedent suggested a court might weigh a pattern of arrests and no prior warning to district court; affirmed |
| Adequacy of consideration of § 3553(a) factors | Court failed to adequately consider mitigation (time already served, rehabilitation) | Those factors were presented and considered; court need not address each factor mechanically | Abuse‑of‑discretion review; court did not abuse its discretion; affirmed |
| Compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) explanation requirement | Court’s explanation for imposing top‑of‑range sentence was inadequate and requires vacatur | Transcript reveals court’s rationale (criminal‑history underrepresentation, public protection), and defendant failed to object timely | Plain‑error review for failure to preserve; no plain error because rationale is discernible and no reasonable probability of a lesser sentence if explained more literally; affirmed |
| Substantive reasonableness of within‑range sentence | Sentence is greater than necessary given rehabilitation and prior Puerto Rico term (risk of double punishment) | Offense serious; criminal history and recidivism risk justify top‑of‑range; prior term did not increase offense level so §5K2.23 inapplicable | Even under abuse‑of‑discretion standard, within‑range sentence is plausible and not greater than necessary; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (acquitted conduct may be considered at sentencing only if proved by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing review is bifurcated: procedural then substantive; abuse of discretion standard)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (within‑Guidelines sentences may be afforded a presumption of reasonableness)
- United States v. Lombard, 102 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) (district court may weight uncharged offenses within range only if it finds by a preponderance that they occurred)
- United States v. Flores‑Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (review of sentencing court’s interpretation of Guidelines is de novo; factfinding reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Fernández‑Cabrera, 625 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (appeal waiver in plea agreement unenforceable when sentence exceeds terms of agreement)