United States v. Figueroa-Rivera, 665 F. App'x 1

Omar Figueroa-Rivera pleaded guilty under a nonbinding plea agreement to possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)).
The parties jointly recommended the 60-month mandatory minimum sentence (and guideline sentence), but the district court imposed a 72-month sentence (12 months above recommendation).
Figueroa-Rivera argued the 72-month sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable on appeal.
The district judge explained the sentence by referencing § 3553(a) factors, including respect for law, just punishment, deterrence, and public protection, and cited local crime-rate concerns when justifying deterrence.
The judge acknowledged Figueroa-Rivera’s personal characteristics (education, employment, family, lack of prior convictions, cooperation, remorse) but concluded a 72-month term better served sentencing objectives.
The government had recommended 60 months per the plea agreement; the court addressed whether the government could defend the higher sentence on appeal and found no contractual bar to doing so.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness of 72-month sentence	Figueroa-Rivera: judge failed to adequately explain why 12-month upward variance was warranted	Government: judge addressed relevant § 3553(a) factors and explained rationale	Court: No procedural error; explanation sufficient for meaningful review
Weight given to local crime rate vs. individual characteristics	Figueroa-Rivera: judge overemphasized community concerns and underweighted his personal history	Government: judge considered both individual traits and community deterrence needs	Court: No abuse — judge balanced factors and legitimately referenced local crime rate for deterrence
Substantive reasonableness of the variance	Figueroa-Rivera: sentence lacks plausible rationale; undue emphasis on community crime makes result unreasonable	Government: sentence is supported by a defensible rationale and result	Court: Substantively reasonable; variance supported by record and sentencing objectives
Whether plea agreement barred government from defending the sentence on appeal	Figueroa-Rivera: plea terms preclude government from arguing for reasonableness of upward variance	Government: plea required recommendation but did not bar appellate defense	Court: Government may defend the sentence; agreement did not prohibit appellate advocacy

United States v. Bermúdez–Meléndez, 827 F.3d 160 (1st Cir.) (discussing plea-escape of appeal waiver where court exceeds recommendation)
United States v. Razo, 782 F.3d 31 (1st Cir.) (standard of review for preserved sentencing challenges)
United States v. Fernández–Cabrera, 625 F.3d 48 (1st Cir.) (judicial explanation need not be overly technical to permit meaningful review)
United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) (deterrence is a legitimate sentencing goal)
United States v. Suárez–González, 760 F.3d 96 (1st Cir.) (sentencing court expected to weigh relevant factors)
United States v. Carrasco–de–Jesús, 589 F.3d 22 (1st Cir.) (defendant entitled to weighing, not to particular result)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.) (substantive reasonableness requires a plausible rationale and defensible result)
United States v. Rivera-González, 776 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (upward variance affirmed in case with serious criminal history)
United States v. Vargas-García, 794 F.3d 162 (1st Cir.) (upward variance affirmed in case with serious criminal history)
United States v. Oquendo-García, 783 F.3d 54 (1st Cir.) (upward variance affirmed in case with serious criminal history)