United States v. Fuentes-Echevarria, 856 F.3d 22

In Sept. 2014 police stopped Raymond Fuentes near a known drug-trafficking location; a drug canine alerted to the vehicle, Fuentes fled, and the car was sealed and searched with a warrant.
Search uncovered a secret dashboard compartment containing a .40 Glock converted to full-auto, multiple magazines, and 108 rounds of ammunition; a sealed indictment charged illegal possession of a machine gun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and § 924(a)(2).
Fuentes was arrested in July 2015, pleaded guilty without a plea agreement days before trial, and did not object to his PSR.
The PSR set a Base Offense Level of 18, reduced to total offense level 16 for acceptance of responsibility, yielding a Guidelines range of 21–27 months; the district court varied upward and imposed 48 months imprisonment and 36 months supervised release.
On appeal Fuentes argued (1) the court should have given an additional one-level acceptance reduction under U.S.S.G. §3E1.1(b), (2) the upward variance relied improperly on community-level concerns rather than case-specific facts, and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek the extra §3E1.1(b) reduction and for other omissions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by not awarding an extra one-level §3E1.1(b) reduction	Gov: §3E1.1(b) reduction requires a government motion; court acted properly without sua sponte reduction	Fuentes: He qualified for the additional one-level reduction and court should have applied it	No error: §3E1.1(b) requires a government motion; district court did not err in denying reduction sua sponte
Whether the 48-month upward variance was procedurally unreasonable because it relied on generalized community violence	Fuentes: Court focused too much on community violence and speculation rather than case-specific factors	Gov: Deterrence and community context are legitimate §3553(a) considerations supported by case-specific facts	Affirmed: Court permissibly considered deterrence and community context and relied on case-specific facts (secret compartment, large ammo supply, proximity to drug area, flight) to justify the variance
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request the §3E1.1(b) reduction and other alleged omissions	Fuentes: Counsel was deficient for not pressing the extra acceptance reduction and for conceding improper factual matters	Gov: No manifestly apparent deficient performance on the record	Dismissed without prejudice: Ineffective-assistance claim not manifest on the record; may be raised in §2255 collateral proceedings

United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.) (deferential abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
United States v. Acevedo-Sueros, 826 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.) (§3E1.1(b) requires government motion; commentary emphasizes government discretion)
United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) (deterrence and community context can justify variance when tied to offense/offender)
United States v. Díaz–Arroyo, 797 F.3d 125 (1st Cir.) (upholding variant sentence motivated by community violent-crime concerns)
United States v. Ofray-Campos, 534 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (example of vacated extreme above-Guidelines sentence; distinguished from this case)