United States v. Flores-Machicote, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1565

Defendant Victor Flores-Machicote pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in Puerto Rico; maximum sentence 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2).
PSI recommended a guideline range of 33–41 months; parties jointly requested 33 months per a nonbinding plea agreement.
District court rejected the joint recommendation as irresponsible and imposed a five-year (60 months) sentence.
Defendant appeals asserting procedural flaws and substantive unreasonableness; seeks resentencing before a different judge.
We review for abuse of discretion under Gall and apply de novo review to guidelines interpretation, with factfinding under clear error.
Court affirms the sentence, concluding the judge conducted individualized consideration and did not rely solely on impermissible factors; deterrence and community-context considerations were properly grounded in the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court failed to make an individualized assessment.	Flores-Machicote argues court relied on impermissible, general factors.	Flores-Machicote contends no individualization, improper emphasis on local crime.	No procedural error; individualized consideration found.
Whether the court properly weighed offender history and local court history.	Flores-Machicote asserts history underrepresented and was underweighted.	Flores-Machicote argues history consideration was inadequate.	Court reasonably weighed history to reflect seriousness and recidivism.
Whether consideration of Puerto Rico crime statistics and deterrence was proper.	Flores-Machicote claims improper reliance on community crime trends.	Flores-Machicote argues deterrence factors grounded in case specifics.	Permissible to consider community factors for deterrence in context.
Whether the five-year sentence outside the GSR is substantively reasonable.	Flores-Machicote contends sentence too harsh relative to GSR.	Flores-Machicote argues district court should not exceed GSR.	Sentence within a plausible rationale; substantial variance justified by offense and history.
Whether the forfeited 3553(a)(6) disparity claim göster plain error review and outcome.	Flores-Machicote claims unwarranted disparity based on statistics.	Flores-Machicote asserts court biased in sentencing.	Claim is forfeited; even if reviewed, no plain error or unwarranted disparity.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework for outside-GSR sentences)
Martin v. United States, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (two-step inquiry; assesses procedure then substantive reasonableness)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (allows case-by-case weighting of 3553(a) factors in sentencing)
Lozada-Aponte, 689 F.3d 791 (1st Cir. 2012) (explains consideration of criminal history and possible underrepresentation)
Walker, 665 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2011) (de novo review of guidelines application with respect to factual and legal determinations)
Politano, 522 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2008) (permits community-based considerations in sentencing)
Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (upholding upward variance to address community gun-crime concerns)
Landry, 631 F.3d 597 (1st Cir. 2011) (permissible to consider incidence and trend lines of crime in community)
Santiago-Rivera, 594 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2010) (judge may not sentence to control unrelated local sentence)
Gallardo-Ortiz, 666 F.3d 808 (1st Cir. 2012) (upholds substantial variance if justified by circumstances)
Saez, 444 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2006) (addresses disparate treatment considerations in sentencing)
Washington, 187 F. App'x 3 (1st Cir. 2006) (appellate review of sentences in narrow circumstances)