United States v. De Jesus-Torres, 64 F.4th 33

Background

Defendant Erick De Jesús-Torres and two accomplices used the Uber app to lure and carjack drivers on multiple occasions; accomplices displayed a pellet gun in several incidents.
After a failed carjacking where a driver resisted, the trio continued and were apprehended shortly thereafter; a scuffle with an off‑duty officer resulted in a disputed shooting incident.
A federal grand jury indicted De Jesús‑Torres on five counts of carjacking and one count of attempted carjacking; he pleaded guilty to all counts.
The probation office’s amended PSI applied a dangerous‑weapon enhancement (USSG §2B3.1(b)(3)(A)), producing a total offense level yielding a guidelines range of 78–97 months; the court imposed 78 months.
The district court ordered $9,295.03 in restitution (replacement cellphone, auto‑body work, and transmission repairs).
On appeal the First Circuit affirmed the sentence but found insufficient evidence tying the transmission repairs ($3,914.52) to the carjackings, directed reduction of restitution by that amount, and affirmed the modified restitution order ($5,380.51).

Issues

Issue	Gov't Argument	De Jesús‑Torres Argument	Held
1. Were defendant's untimely objections to the PSI forfeited?	Objections should be preserved because neither court nor government objected below.	Objections were late under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f)(1).	Court assumed preservation (no forfeiture) because timeliness was not contested below.
2. Did the district court procedurally err by relying on disputed PSI facts (encounter with off‑duty officer)?	Court expressly disavowed reliance on that disputed encounter for sentencing.	Court relied on disputed facts—so factual finding should have been resolved under Rule 32(i)(3)(B).	No procedural error: district court disavowed reliance and record contained no contrary indication.
3. Is the within‑guidelines 78‑month sentence substantively unreasonable (including challenge to weapon enhancement/Kimbrough)?	Guidelines and aiding‑and‑abetting principles support applying the dangerous‑weapon enhancement; district court reasonably weighed mitigating factors and need not vary downward.	Enhancement is policy‑misapplied because defendant neither procured nor wielded gun; mitigating factors (youth, foster care, first offender) warrant lower sentence.	Affirmed: court articulated a plausible rationale, applied guidelines correctly, and no abuse of discretion in declining a downward variance.
4. Was restitution for transmission repairs supported by evidence and causation?	Probation report and a receipt established cost; restitution proper if government proves proximate but‑for causal nexus by a preponderance.	No evidence linked transmission damage to the carjacking; causation not shown.	Reversed as to transmission repairs: cost proven but causation not; subtract $3,914.52 and affirm modified restitution.

Key Cases Cited

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (sentencing courts may vary based on policy disagreement with Guidelines)
Padilla‑Galarza, 990 F.3d 60 (1st Cir.) (government must prove proximate, but‑for causal nexus for MVRA restitution)
Prochner v. United States, 417 F.3d 54 (1st Cir.) (PSI generally has sufficient indicia of reliability for sentencing/restitution)
Cyr v. United States, 337 F.3d 96 (1st Cir.) (district court may rely on PSI when defendant offers no rebuttal evidence)
Clogston v. United States, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir.) (framework for procedural/substantive sentencing review)
Chiaradio v. United States, 684 F.3d 265 (1st Cir.) (standard of review for restitution orders)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (when judge applies Guidelines, less explanation may be required)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (framework for individualized sentencing and review)
Carbajal‑Váldez v. United States, 874 F.3d 778 (1st Cir.) (timeliness/forfeiture of PSI objections)