United States v. Flores-Gonzalez, 34 F.4th 103

Flores was arrested in Puerto Rico with a modified Glock capable of automatic fire, 63 rounds of ammunition, and a spent casing; he pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a machine gun (18 U.S.C. § 922(o)).
The presentence report applied a prohibited-person enhancement based on Flores's admitted marijuana use, yielding a total offense level 17, criminal-history category I, and an advisory range of 24–30 months.
The district judge imposed an upward variance to 48 months (18 months above the Guidelines range), citing Puerto Rico’s high rate of gun violence and the serious community impact of machine guns.
The written Statement of Reasons checked boxes citing deterrence, public protection, and seriousness, but did not mark the Kimbrough (policy-disagreement) box.
On appeal Flores argued the prohibited-person finding was erroneous and that the upward variance was procedurally and substantively unreasonable; the First Circuit affirmed the prohibited-person finding but vacated the upward variance and remanded for resentencing within the 24–30 month range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Flores)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
1) Prohibited-person drug-use finding	Flores: his admitted drug use was only a few months, not the long-period regular use required.	Gov: earlier admissions (daily use from age 17) support the prohibited-person finding.	Affirmed — judge’s credibility choice and reliance on earlier admissions was not clearly erroneous.
2) Upward variance based on Puerto Rico gun-violence	Flores: judge relied on community-wide gun-violence statistics unmoored from Flores’s individual conduct; failed to make a case-specific nexus.	Gov: judge reasonably weighed community dangers and was effectively exercising Kimbrough authority to disagree with the Guidelines.	Reversed — vacated and remanded. An upward variance cannot rest solely on community characteristics absent individualized factors tying those concerns to the defendant/offense.
3) Whether community characteristics suffice as a Kimbrough variance	Flores: community factors cannot be the sole basis for an upward Kimbrough-style variance.	Gov: community characteristic can reflect a policy disagreement with the Guidelines and so justify a Kimbrough variance.	Rejected the Gov’s theory — community-based characteristics alone do not constitute a Kimbrough policy disagreement; judges must identify individual or offense-specific reasons for extra weight.

United States v. Rivera-Berríos, 968 F.3d 130 (1st Cir. 2020) (holds community characteristics cannot support an upward variance unless tied to case-specific offender or offense factors)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (recognizes judges may vary from Guidelines based on policy disagreements)
United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (permits consideration of locality crime trends to inform deterrence but cautions against overreliance)
United States v. Carrasquillo-Sánchez, 9 F.4th 56 (1st Cir. 2021) (applies Rivera-Berríos to vacate an upward variance grounded in community concerns)
United States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2008) (upheld a variance where community characteristics were considered alongside specific offender/recidivism concerns)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sets procedural expectations for sentencing explanations and appellate review of variances)