United States v. Fletcher, 56 F.4th 179

Background

Police in Hyannis observed Timothy Fletcher engage in a controlled drug sale after meeting with known dealer Brooke Cotell; officers arrested Fletcher shortly thereafter and found cocaine on his person.
Fletcher carried a Simple Storage facility key fob and U-Haul lock key; the storage unit (rented in his mother's name) contained 223 sneaker boxes intermingled with three pistols, ammunition, scales, cutting agents, ~182 grams of cocaine/crack, cash, and paperwork in Fletcher's name.
Fingerprints of Fletcher were recovered from a pistol and a magazine found in the unit; Simple Storage records showed access with Fletcher’s fob on the night of arrest.
At trial Fletcher advanced a theory that Cotell or a prior girlfriend, Erica Lopes, controlled the unit; his mother refused to testify, invoking the Fifth Amendment, and the court informed the jury she would have declined to answer questions about the locker.
A jury convicted Fletcher of being a felon in possession of firearms/ammunition and possession with intent to distribute cocaine/crack; the district court sentenced him to 168 months (31 months above the Guidelines range) based on an upward departure/variance for an extensive criminal history.
On appeal Fletcher challenged (1) exclusion of his mother as a witness, (2) pre-Rehaif jury instructions on felon‑in‑possession, and (3) several procedural and substantive aspects of the above‑Guidelines sentence; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Fletcher's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Exclusion of mother-witness who invoked Fifth Amendment	Court should have compelled her testimony or conducted voir dire to carve out non‑incriminating questions; exclusion impaired defense.	Mother would invoke the Fifth as to locker/contents; court properly informed jury and exclusion (or instruction) was harmless.	Affirmed: even if district court erred, error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming incriminating evidence.
Jury instruction re: felon-in-possession (Rehaif)	Jury should have been told government must prove defendant knew he belonged to a category barred from possessing firearms; lack of instruction requires new trial.	Plain‑error review applies; Fletcher's lengthy prison terms made it highly likely he knew his prior convictions were punishable by >1 year, so no reasonable probability of acquittal.	Affirmed: no plain error—no reasonable probability proper instruction would have led to acquittal.
Failure to give Rule 32(h) notice for upward departure	District court failed to provide required advance notice of departure, prejudicing Fletcher’s preparation and mitigation arguments.	Defense had ample notice criminal history would be central; court’s rationale tracked §3553(a) so same sentence would have been imposed as a variance.	Affirmed: objection forfeited; any Rule 32(h) error was not prejudicial because same result would obtain as a variance.
Sentencing: application of USSG §4A1.3, written reasons, and substantive reasonableness	Court misapplied §4A1.3(a)(4), failed to supply required written reasons under §4A1.3(c)(1)/§3553(c)(2), and the upward sentence was substantively unreasonable.	§4A1.3 allows incremental increases and the court adequately explained the sentence orally tied to criminal history and §3553(a); the sentence was within the broad range of reasonableness.	Affirmed: any procedural defect was harmless or forfeited; explanation adequate when read with the record; sentence substantively reasonable.

Key Cases Cited

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (government must prove defendant knew both possession and status disqualifying him from firearm possession)
Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021) (prejudice inquiry under plain‑error review for Rehaif claims requires reasonable‑probability of acquittal)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (harmless‑error standard for infringement of confrontation and evidence rules)
United States v. Cascella, 943 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019) (blanket Fifth Amendment assertions are disfavored but may be acceptable where no relevant non‑incriminating testimony is available)
United States v. Burghardt, 939 F.3d 397 (1st Cir. 2019) (plain‑error standard and Rehaif context)
United States v. Santini‑Santiago, 846 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2017) (discussion of departures vs variances post‑Booker)
United States v. Vega‑Santiago, 519 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (sentencing courts must avoid unfair surprise when relying on factors that would surprise counsel)
United States v. Laboy‑Nadal, 992 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2021) (no prejudice where a departure error would have produced the same sentence as a variance under §3553(a))
United States v. Madera‑Ortiz, 637 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011) (brief but coherent sentencing explanation can be sufficient)
Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (advisory Guidelines and sentencing variance authority)