United States v. Crespo-Rios
787 F.3d 34
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Fernando Crespo-Ríos pled guilty to (1) transferring obscene material to a minor and (2) possessing child pornography after online chats (2007–2008) with an FBI agent posing as a 12‑year‑old and a search yielding 300–600 images and a video depicting severe sexual abuse.
- PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 70–87 months imprisonment and supervised release 5 years to life.
- Defendant presented psychosexual evaluations and argued low recidivism risk, substance‑abuse issues, and that the guidelines are flawed; government sought a within‑Guidelines sentence.
- After an updated psy‑sexual report and testimony finding low risk if treated, the district court imposed a major downward variance to time served (13 days) and 15 years’ supervised release with restrictive conditions.
- District court explained the variance chiefly by the defendant’s personal history, characteristics, and rehabilitative potential but gave little on‑the‑record analysis of other § 3553(a) factors.
- Government appealed; the First Circuit vacated and remanded because the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation supporting so large a variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an extreme downward variance to time served was adequately justified on the record | Government: sentence substantively unreasonable because court failed to explain consideration of § 3553(a) factors (seriousness, deterrence, disparities, respect for law) commensurate with the variance | Crespo‑Ríos: district court adequately considered § 3553(a), relying on psychosexual reports, low recidivism risk, mental‑health and suicide risk, and supervised‑release conditions | Vacated and remanded: explanation inadequate — district court focused almost exclusively on rehabilitation and did not show how it weighed other § 3553(a) factors to support so large a variance |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (courts may vary from Guidelines but must explain the extent of deviation; larger variances require more significant justification)
- Martin v. United States, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (courts should not deviate casually; greater variance needs stronger justification)
- Gilman v. United States, 478 F.3d 440 (1st Cir. 2007) (vacatur and remand appropriate where explanation is inadequate; appellate court may allow district court to elaborate)
- Milo v. United States, 506 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2007) (rehabilitation and lack of reoffense do not automatically justify non‑incarcerative sentence where other § 3553(a) purposes remain)
- Ofray‑Campos v. United States, 534 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (upholding requirement that major deviations be supported by sufficiently compelling explanations)
- Turbides‑Leonardo v. United States, 468 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2006) (lesser explanation required for within‑Guidelines sentences; appellate court may sometimes fill gaps from record)
- Madera‑Ortiz v. United States, 637 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011) (detail required varies with circumstances; outside‑Guidelines sentences need greater explanation)
- Santiago‑Rivera v. United States, 744 F.3d 229 (1st Cir. 2014) (no single correct sentence; appellate review considers totality of circumstances)
- Torres‑Landrúa v. United States, 783 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2015) (district court statements about the record merit weight on appeal)
- Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (possession of child pornography is not a victimless crime; recognizes serious harms to child victims)