United States v. Flores-Quinones, 985 F.3d 128

Flores pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of an AR-15 found loaded on his car seat after officers saw him fire the rifle from his vehicle outside a pub in Puerto Rico while on supervised release.
He had a 2010 conviction for drug conspiracy, served 60 months, and was on supervised release with prior revocation for drug-use violations.
PSR computed a Guidelines range of 37–46 months for the felon-in-possession count (total offense level 19, CHC III) and 4–10 months for the supervised-release revocation.
At sentencing the district court imposed an upward variance: 60 months for the felon-in-possession count and 18 months for the revocation, to run consecutively. The court emphasized the dangerousness of firing a semi-automatic rifle in public and Flores’s repeated flouting of supervised-release conditions.
Flores appealed, arguing the sentences were procedurally and substantively unreasonable, principally asserting the court effectively departed without Rule 32(h) notice (invoking U.S.S.G. § 5K2.6) and otherwise erred in imposing above-Guidelines sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Flores)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) by imposing an above-Guidelines sentence without notice (i.e., impermissible departure)	The court relied on weapon-danger grounds covered by U.S.S.G. § 5K2.6, so Rule 32(h) notice was required for a departure.	The court imposed a variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), not a Guidelines departure, so Rule 32(h) did not apply.	The court imposed a variance, not a departure; Rule 32(h) notice was not required.
Whether the upward-variant sentences were procedurally and substantively unreasonable	The combined above-Guidelines sentences were excessive and procedurally infirm.	The sentences were supported by the § 3553(a) factors: dangerous conduct (firing an assault rifle in public) and repeated supervised-release violations.	Sentences were procedurally proper and substantively reasonable; the court gave plausible, defensible § 3553(a) reasons.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (framework for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008) (Rule 32(h) applies to departures, not variances)
United States v. Daoust, 888 F.3d 571 (1st Cir. 2018) (notice requirements and revocation-sentence authority; upholding an upward variance on revocation)
United States v. Santini-Santiago, 846 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2017) (distinguishing variances from Guidelines departures)
United States v. Méndez-Báez, 927 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2019) (affirming substantive reasonableness of upward variance based on dangerous conduct)
United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (sentencing-reasonableness standards; § 3553(a) considerations)
United States v. Reyes-Torres, 979 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020) (multifaceted review: procedural then substantive review)
United States v. Sayer, 916 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2019) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)