United States v. Daniel Arroyo, 685 F. App'x 857

Arroyo, a felon, was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possessing a stolen semiautomatic handgun; his long criminal history includes robbery, attempted murder, aggravated battery, firearm offenses, and violent prison infractions.
After prior proceedings involving ACCA issues and a remand, the advisory Guidelines range was calculated at 46–57 months (total offense level 19, criminal history IV).
The government and a victim requested an upward variance to the statutory maximum (120 months); the court continued sentencing to receive more evidence.
Arroyo presented expert testimony that he has brain impairment and schizoaffective disorder and recommended treatment-focused sentencing; Arroyo requested 84 months.
The district court varied upward to the 120‑month statutory maximum, citing Arroyo’s violent criminal history and continued violence in custody and concluding a maximum term was necessary to protect the public.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court committed procedural error in sentencing	Arroyo: court failed to afford sufficient weight to his intellectual and mental-health deficits	Government: court considered mental-health evidence and statutory factors	No procedural error; court considered relevant §3553(a) factors and expert testimony
Whether the upward variance to the statutory maximum was substantively reasonable	Arroyo: variance (63 months above Guidelines) was excessive and relied unduly on a dismissed domestic-violence charge, criminal history, and prison record	Government: violent history and in-custody violence justified a significant upward variance to protect the public	Substantively reasonable; district court did not abuse discretion in weighing factors
Whether the district court improperly relied on clearly erroneous facts	Arroyo: court relied on dismissed charge and disciplinary reports	Government: facts relied on were supported by record of convictions and infractions	No; court’s factual findings were supported and within discretion
Whether sentencing court failed to explain deviation from Guidelines	Arroyo: explanation was insufficient for such a large variance	Government: court provided reasons (violent history, need for protection, expert input)	Adequate explanation; district court justified the variance under §3553(a)

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard of review for sentencing reasonableness and treatment of variances)
United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2009) (upholding large upward variance based on extensive violent criminal history)
United States v. Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2016) (affirming upward variance to statutory maximum for repeated violent offenses)
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (weight accorded to §3553(a) factors is within district court discretion)
United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2008) (defendant’s violent history properly considered under §3553(a))