United States v. Figueroa-Figueroa
791 F.3d 187
1st Cir.2015Background
- Over two days in March 2012 Figueroa committed multiple violent crimes at gunpoint in Puerto Rico, resulting in six robbery convictions and nine weapons convictions; state court imposed a 12-year total sentence (9 years weapons consecutive + 3 years robberies concurrent).
- Federally, Figueroa pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm based on his conduct during arrest; the presentence report (PSR) assigned an adjusted offense level of 25, including a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because he used/possessed a firearm in connection with another felony.
- The PSR relied on state-prosecuted conduct as relevant conduct to the federal offense, which contributed (in part) to the Guidelines calculation; the advisory Guidelines range was 70–87 months.
- Defense asked the district court to run the federal sentence concurrently with the undischarged state term, invoking U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b); at sentencing the court imposed an 87‑month federal term to run consecutively to the state sentence, citing § 3553(a) factors.
- On appeal Figueroa argued the district court procedurally erred by failing to apply § 5G1.3(b) (which mandates concurrency where the undischarged term is relevant conduct and formed the basis for a Guidelines increase); the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) required the federal sentence to run concurrently with the undischarged state term | Figueroa: State offenses were relevant conduct and formed the basis for the Guidelines increase, so § 5G1.3(b) mandates concurrency | Government: Only some state conduct counted toward the Guidelines; where only part of prior offense is relevant or only some prior acts produced the enhancement, § 5G1.3(c) — not (b) — governs and grants district court discretion | Held: § 5G1.3(b) did not apply because not all of the prior offense both was relevant conduct and caused the Guidelines increase; (c) applied, giving the court discretion to impose a consecutive sentence |
| Whether the claim was preserved and standard of review | Figueroa relied on § 5G1.3 in his memorandum but did not press it at sentencing | Government: Argument forfeited; review should be for plain error; regardless, district court correctly exercised discretion | Held: Court did not need to resolve forfeiture; on the merits no error — even under preserved-review standards the district court did not misapply the Guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (statutory framework for concurrent vs. consecutive sentences and States’ role in credit)
- United States v. Dunbar, 660 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2011) (§ 5G1.3(b) inapplicable where relevant conduct did not affect the federal guideline range)
- United States v. Carrasco‑de‑Jesús, 589 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (defendant bears burden to show § 5G1.3(b) applies; § 5G1.3(b) requires causative effect on offense level)