United States v. Figueroa-Quinones
657 F. App'x 9
1st Cir.2016Background
- Homeland Security agents (with Puerto Rico police) entered a Guaynabo residence without a warrant after hearing noises; they found marijuana plants, loose marijuana, weapons, and detained Oscar Figueroa‑Quiñones.
- Figueroa initially denied connection to the residence, then admitted it was his home, consented to searches (vehicle and then residence), and later confessed to owning the munitions and operating the grow lab.
- A federal grand jury indicted Figueroa on two counts: possession with intent to distribute controlled substances and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug‑trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- Figueroa pleaded guilty to the § 924(c) count under a plea agreement recommending the 60‑month statutory minimum; the district court calculated the guideline correctly but sentenced him to 72 months, citing seriousness, volume of drugs, firearms, and deterrence.
- Figueroa objected at sentencing and on appeal, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness; the First Circuit affirmed, finding no procedural error and that the upward variance was justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness — did the court adequately consider § 3553(a) factors and explain its sentence? | Government: district court considered the PSR, arguments, and § 3553(a); explanation was sufficient. | Figueroa: court underweighted mitigating factors (first‑time offender, cooperation, character letters) and overemphasized community crime concerns. | Affirmed — court expressly considered § 3553(a), discussed mitigating facts, and gave an adequate explanation; no procedural error. |
| Substantive reasonableness — was the 72‑month sentence within the universe of reasonable sentences? | Government: sentence is a defensible upward variance given drug quantity, role in grow operation, and firearms. | Figueroa: 12‑month upward variance was excessive and not individualized, unduly driven by a firearms initiative and local crime rate. | Affirmed — sentence rests on a plausible rationale and is within the expansive universe of reasonable outcomes. |
| Applicability of plea‑waiver to bar appeal | Government: waiver applies if court followed plea terms. | Figueroa: challenge preserved because sentence differed from plea recommendation. | Affirmed that waiver did not bar appeal because the court imposed a different sentence than the plea agreement. |
| Whether district court gave undue weight to community crime statistics, creating a limitless justification for variance | Government: reliance on deterrence and community concerns permissible. | Figueroa: using crime rate as justification can create a merciless cycle and is problematic. | Rejected as waived and meritless on these facts; court’s use of local crime data was a proper part of § 3553(a) analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305 (1st Cir.) (standard for reviewing sentencing reasonableness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework)
- United States v. Morales‑Machuca, 546 F.3d 13 (1st Cir.) (sentencing review principles)
- United States v. Flores‑Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) (community concerns and deterrence in sentencing)
- United States v. Medina‑Villegas, 700 F.3d 580 (1st Cir.) (abuse‑of‑discretion review)
- United States v. Santiago‑Rivera, 744 F.3d 229 (1st Cir.) (weight of court's statement that it considered § 3553(a))
- United States v. Dávila‑González, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir.) (deference to district court's consideration of § 3553(a))
- United States v. Rivera‑González, 776 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (caution against overemphasis on community at expense of individual factors)
- United States v. Ocasio‑Cancel, 727 F.3d 85 (1st Cir.) (filling gaps in explanation by comparing record and PSR)
- United States v. Jiménez‑Beltre, 440 F.3d 514 (1st Cir.) (sentencing explanation principles)
- United States v. Ruiz‑Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir.) (substantive‑reasonableness review burden)
- United States v. Vega‑Salgado, 769 F.3d 100 (1st Cir.) (deference when sentence fits within guideline compass)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.) (plausible sentencing rationale standard)
- United States v. Vargas, 560 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (sources for facts on plea appeals and reasonableness)
- United States v. Bermúdez‑Meléndez, 827 F.3d 160 (1st Cir.) (treatment of statutory mandatory minimum as guideline sentence)